Public Transport Connectivity Analysis

Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings

Date: November 2015 Version: Final

CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 5 Context ...... 5 Scope of this report ...... 5 Conclusions ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 9 Background ...... 9 Scope of this report ...... 9 2. Methodology and assumptions ...... 10 Background ...... 10 Railplan model ...... 10 Connectivity measures ...... 11 Definition of options ...... 13 3. Illustrative journey time changes ...... 17 Travel time mapping ...... 18 4. Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) ...... 20 Background ...... 20 2031 Reference Case ...... 20 Cross-river bus network changes ...... 21 Gallions Reach local options ...... 22 Belvedere local options ...... 26 Gallions Reach strategic options ...... 27 5. Catchment analysis - Access to jobs ...... 28 Background ...... 28 2031 Reference Case ...... 28 Cross-river bus network changes ...... 28 Gallions Reach local options ...... 31 Belvedere local options ...... 36 Gallions Reach strategic options ...... 37 6. Catchment analysis - Access to the labour market ...... 40 Background ...... 40 2031 Reference Case ...... 40 Cross-river bus network changes ...... 41 Gallions Reach local options ...... 43 Belvedere local options ...... 47 Gallions Reach strategic options ...... 48

7. Thamesmead Travel Options Pie Analysis ...... 52 Background ...... 52 2031 Reference Case ...... 52 Cross-river bus network changes ...... 53 Gallions Reach local options ...... 55 Belvedere local options ...... 58 Gallions Reach strategic options ...... 59 8. Public transport demand (fixed demand matrices) ...... 62 Background ...... 62 Cross-river bus network changes ...... 62 Gallions Reach local options ...... 63 Belvedere local options ...... 65 Gallions Reach strategic options ...... 65 9. Additional analysis ...... 68 Initial conclusions and further analysis ...... 68 Alternative DLR service pattern (DLR 1a) ...... 72 Trips and mode share (variable demand matrices) ...... 74 Trip distribution (variable demand matrices) ...... 77 Estimates of public transport demand (variable demand matrices) ...... 79 Public transport crowding (variable demand matrices) ...... 81 10. Conclusion ...... 85

Appendix A: Public transport forecasting and appraisal assumptions

Appendix B: Thamesmead-Woolwich tram test

Executive Summary Context

1. Transport for London (TfL) is proposing a programme of river crossings that seeks to improve the ability of people and goods to cross the River Thames in London. Its focus is on the continued enhancement of the transport network, both in response to the enormous changes which have taken place in London over the last two to three decades, and as a means of supporting the significant further growth that is forecast. 2. The Strategic Case sets out the project objectives for river crossings east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. The three key objectives are:  To support population and employment growth;  To improve cross-river connectivity; and  To improve the resilience of cross-river transport links.

Scope of this report

3. The development and appraisal of options is an iterative process. The first phase of the option selection process was reported in the Option Assessment Report (Long List), which covers all the long list options considered, including highway, public transport and walking and cycling options and reduces the number of options to be taken forward for more detailed assessment to an interim list. 4. The second phase of the option selection process is captured in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List), which includes a summary of the public transport impacts of the options. 5. The role of this report is to set out the impacts of the alternative public transport infrastructure options and the findings to feed into the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List).

Conclusions

6. Buses would form the Do-Minimum public transport provision expected to be included with any proposed crossing package. All other fixed public transport options will be assessed relative to this scenario. Gallions Reach local options

7. The provision of a short DLR extension from Gallions Reach to Thamesmead (DLR 1) represents a scheme that could be delivered as part of the Gallions Reach crossing and that provides a very significant localised boost in connectivity to Thamesmead West and North. With the introduction of DLR 1 these areas have access to 150-200 thousand jobs within 75 minutes generalised time, putting them on a par with nearby residential areas such as Plumstead and East Ham. 8. DLR 1 would offer significant development opportunities. Thamesmead town centre would be transformed into a PTAL 4 transport hub, with the potential for significant mixed use and medium-density residential development (6-7,000 homes). Further development opportunities exist on the northern side of the river near to the

proposed Armada Junction station. DLR option 1 should be taken forward for further analysis. 9. However, the proposed service pattern in DLR option 1 could involve a reduction in DLR frequency between Gallions Reach and Beckton compared to the 2031 Reference Case, resulting in a marginal reduction in connectivity to established residential communities in parts of Newham. In practice many of these areas will experience a significant improvement in connectivity between now and 2031 as a result of DLR capacity enhancements and Crossrail services from Custom House. However, this reduction in connectivity does muddy the waters when trying to quantify the benefits of a DLR extension to Thamesmead. Therefore an additional DLR option 1a has been tested where the Thamesmead extension is a net additional service without a negative impact on Beckton. 10. The provision of a DLR link on the Gallions Reach crossing provides the opportunity for further network extensions in the medium term. DLR 3 includes an extension southwards through the spine of Thamesmead to Abbey Wood, and an extension northwards to Barking, filling the Barking-Royal Docks gap in the public transport network and opening up the Lower Roding Valley for development. 11. DLR option 3 generates a very significant increase in access to jobs for several areas, and access to the labour market for businesses. Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central gain access to over 200 thousand jobs within 75 minutes generalised time. The forthcoming Advanced Business Park development in the Royal Docks would see the number of potential workers able to access the site in 75 minutes generalised time increase by over 100 to 900 thousand and Thamesmead town centre by over 170 to 420 thousand. In spite of the potentially very significant delivery challenges relating to the DLR interchanges at Abbey Wood and Barking, the DLR 3 alignment meets the core project objectives, and should be taken forward for further analysis. 12. By contrast, it is proposed that DLR 2 (extension from Gallions Reach to Abbey Wood) is not taken forward to the short list of options. The DLR could be extended in an incremental fashion, and while DLR 2 does represent a potential extension of DLR 1, there is an equally strong case for the extension northwards to Barking. As such it is the relative impacts of the different Barking to Abbey Wood options that should be the focus of the additional analysis. 13. The evidence presented shows clearly that the short Tram option 1 (Gallions Reach to Abbey Wood) provides less of a connectivity boost to Thamesmead than the equivalent DLR options 1 or 2. The cross-river DLR link provides residents south of the river with fast access to Custom House and Canning Town for interchange to Crossrail and the Jubilee Line, whereas the tram requires an additional interchange between tram and DLR at Gallions Reach station. It is therefore proposed that Tram 1 is not taken forward to the short list of options. 14. Tram option 2d, by contrast, should be assessed in more detail since the connectivity impacts are comparable to DLR option 3 and Tram 2d even exceeds DLR 3 in the Travel Options Pie analysis, with 26% of jobs accessible by public transport in 45 minutes (including all of Canary Wharf and the City fringe area around Whitechapel station). The inclusion of a Woolwich branch provides fast access from Thamesmead to Crossrail via Woolwich Arsenal, as well as to Woolwich town centre, which offers a range of services and facilities that are not available in Custom House.

15. The Thamesmead to Woolwich section of this option could potentially be constructed in advance of the river crossing to provide a relatively low cost light rail link from Thamesmead to Crossrail and to Woolwich town centre. Moreover, Tram 2d is the only fixed public transport option that relieves the bus crowding forecast in 2031 on the Thamesmead-Woolwich corridor, by providing a higher capacity mode. 16. The concept of a London Overground extension from Barking Riverside to Abbey Wood does not deliver the same scale of connectivity benefits as options DLR 3 or Tram 2d. This is mainly due to the low frequency of 4 trains per hour, but also the limited choice of direct links offered when compared to, for example, DLR 3. Belvedere local options

17. The interim public transport options include a single rail-based scheme operating over the Belvedere crossing (Tram 3 between Barking and Abbey Wood via Belvedere). This option links a number of significant development sites in the key riverside Opportunity Areas. The improvement in PTAL values at Dagenham Dock station, Beam Park and Yarnton Way open up opportunities for mixed use or medium-density residential development. 18. Tram option 3 delivers improved access to jobs in Belvedere, Beam Park and Barking Riverside, linking these employment sites to public transport interchanges at Abbey Wood and Barking. Labour market access would improve as a result to the point that some parts of Beam Park and the Sustainable Industries Park in Dagenham would have access to over 250 thousand workers within 75 minutes generalised time, an improvement of up to 250% on the existing public transport network but still significantly less than sites in the Royal Docks. 19. Overall the case for Tram 3 would be stronger if there were greater certainty about the nature of development and the level of intensification expected at key sites in the immediate surroundings. It is therefore proposed that Tram 3 is not taken forward for further assessment for the time being. Gallions Reach strategic options

20. London Overground option 3 (LO 3) represents one possible solution for creating an outer London orbital rail service using a cross-river link between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead. However, the improvement in access to jobs is relatively small given the very high cost of this scheme. Similarly while there are increases observed around Crayford and Sidcup, the overall impact of the cross-river link on access to the labour market is limited. This is largely due to the low frequency of the proposed service (4 trains per hour), which is a result of the scheduling constraints on existing sections of the network. No further assessment of LO 3 is proposed at the moment. This option is intended as a comparator and would not be delivered as part of the East of Silvertown crossings. 21. Tram-train option 1 represents an equivalent concept to LO 3 but using tram-train technology. This option generates a similar increase in access to jobs around the stations served in southeast London, but it delivers a greater increase in access to jobs in Thamesmead and Barking where it can run as a tram at a higher frequency. Similarly, it generates a greater improvement in access to the labour market in Abbey Wood, Thamesmead and Barking since it can operate at a higher frequency on this section of the route.

22. Overall the connectivity analysis demonstrates that the tram-train concept would offer equivalent benefits to a heavy rail orbital scheme at a lower cost. However, the concept is subject to a number of technical and operational feasibility challenges and is therefore not taken forward to the short list of options. 23. The final strategic option involves an extension of the DLR to form an orbital link from Ilford to Bexleyheath. In the same way that DLR 3 represents a logical extension of DLR 1, DLR option 6 is an alignment that could develop incrementally from DLR 3. This option generates a very significant uplift in access to jobs and to the labour market along the length of the route. In contrast to the orbital Overground concept, it can operate at a high frequency and can offer direct links to stations on the existing DLR network. In terms of network resilience, this orbital alignment provides interchange with all of the major radial routes in the study area. 24. While DLR option 6 extends well beyond the scope of the East of Silvertown crossings, it demonstrates the longer term potential of a cross-river DLR to provide a strategic orbital public transport link and the suitability of a medium-capacity mode to fulfil this role. DLR 6 highlights the potential for mode shift and trip re-distribution resulting from a strategic orbital link, and the variable demand estimate was calculated as 26% higher than fixed demand estimates for this option. This applies to both the cross-river re-distribution effect and the other patronage effects north and south of the river.

1. Introduction

Background

1.1. Transport for London (TfL) is proposing a programme of river crossings that seeks to improve the ability of people and goods to cross the River Thames in London. Its focus is on the continued enhancement of the transport network, both in response to the enormous changes which have taken place in London over the last two to three decades, and as a means of supporting the significant further growth that is forecast. 1.2. The Strategic Case sets out the project objectives for river crossings east of Silvertown. The three key objectives are:  To support population and employment growth;  To improve cross-river connectivity; and  To improve the resilience of cross-river transport links.

Scope of this report

1.3. The Option Assessment Report sets out Transport for London’s (TfL’s) assessment of the alternative options for new river crossings in east London, east of the Silvertown tunnel. The first phase of the option selection process was reported in the Option Assessment Report (Long List), which covers all the long list options considered, including highway, public transport and walking and cycling options. The second phase of the option selection process is captured in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List), and includes a summary of the public transport impacts of the options. 1.4. The role of this report is to set out the impacts of the alternative public transport infrastructure options. 1.5. Chapter 2 describes the methodology and assumptions used in this analysis, as well as the interim list of public transport options. 1.6. Chapter 3 presents the journey time changes that could be experienced by places on either side of the river. 1.7. Chapter 4 sets out the impact of the options on Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs). 1.8. Chapters 5 and 6 present the connectivity analysis results, expressed in terms of access to jobs and access to the labour market. 1.9. Chapter 7 presents access to jobs from Thamesmead using the Travel Opportunities Pie (TOP) analysis method. 1.10. Further information on the forecast demand of the options (fixed demand matrices) is presented in chapter 8. 1.11. Chapter 9 presents some initial conclusions of the analysis as well as some additional analysis, including variable demand forecasts of some of the options.

2. Methodology and assumptions

Background

2.1. The Appraisal Specification Report (ASR) sets out the stages of transport modelling, economic appraisal, and environmental and social impact assessment that will be carried out to inform the appraisal of the East of Silvertown project. Several stages of analysis will be undertaken to select a final short list of options from the long lists. 2.2. The ASR states that the primary purpose of this stage of analysis is to understand how cross-river highway and public transport options change public transport connectivity (a) for specific Opportunity Areas and (b) at a sub-regional level. A secondary element of this stage of work will derive initial estimates of potential demand. These indicators feed into the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List).

Railplan model

2.3. All public transport modelling for the East of Silvertown project has been undertaken using the latest suite of models. 2.4. All estimates of public transport journey times are taken from Railplan 7. Railplan is the public transport assignment model that forecasts the choice of route taken by bus, rail and Underground passengers. It takes the travel demand estimated and allocates it to a public transport mode. It can measure, analyse and predict the results of changes to London’s public transport system, such as new services, changes to service frequencies or vehicle speeds. 2.5. All of the demand inputs to Railplan are derived from LTS version B7.0. The London Transportation Studies model (LTS) is a multi-modal strategic transport model of London and the surrounding area. 2.6. The preferred demand forecasting tool for future stages of the East of Silvertown project will be the London Regional Demand Model (LoRDM). However, LTS has been employed in the short-term to conduct some tests of the re-distributional and mode shift effects of several options (see Table 2.1 for details). 2.7. A technical note outlining the models used and a full list of assumptions is contained in Appendix A. Several key points are summarised below. North Bexley Railplan model version

2.8. The starting point for this work was the North Bexley version of the Railplan model developed by URS on behalf of TfL. This version contains a number of local refinements in the parts of the area of interest to the East of Silvertown study. The review of the model conducted for the Bexley Growth Strategy work concentrated on amendments to the following:  Local zoning system;  On-street network representation;  Coding of local NR stations; and  Provision of PT services in the study area.

2.9. It contains a network of river crossing bus routes that formed a common Do- Minimum scenario for the Bexley Growth Strategy and East of Silvertown workstreams. The trip matrices from LTS including the bus network give an initial proxy for the mode shift and trip distribution effect of providing additional public transport river crossing opportunities, and were therefore used consistently for the initial Railplan runs of all of the interim options. Definition of 2031 Reference Case

2.10. All of the model runs are compared in year 2031. The standard Railplan reference case for 2031 includes a series of committed and planned public transport enhancements, which are set out in Appendix A. 2.11. The East of Silvertown 2031 Reference Case model includes the following changes in addition to the above:  Gospel Oak to Barking Overground extension to Barking Riverside  Silvertown Tunnel, including bus frequency enhancements to route 108 and the extension of route 129 from North Greenwich to Silvertown and Beckton1.

Connectivity measures

2.12. This report includes several types of connectivity measure. These are described below and further information can be found in the TfL document entitled Assessing transport connectivity in London. Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL)

2.13. PTAL is a measure of connectivity by public transport, which has been used in various planning processes in London for many years. For any selected place, PTAL suggests how well the place is connected to public transport services. It does not cover trips by car. 2.14. PTAL values are simple. They range from zero to six, where the highest value represents the best connectivity. For historical reasons, the PTAL value of one is split into two categories (1a and 1b) and the PTAL value of six is split into two categories (6a and 6b). All together there are nine possible values of PTAL: 0, 1a, 1b, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6a and 6b. We often present PTAL values in maps, where preset colours represent the different values. 2.15. A location will have a higher PTAL if:  It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops  Waiting times at the nearest stations or stops are short

1 It should be noted that the above bus service assumptions for Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels have now been superseded. A revised version of the reference case will be prepared during the next stage of modelling to ensure consistency with the Silvertown Tunnel modelling workstream. 11

 More services pass at the nearest stations or stops  There are major rail stations nearby  Any combination of all the above. 2.16. So PTAL can be seen as a measure of the density of the public transport network. PTAL does not take into account the destinations you can travel to from each location or the ease of interchange. 2.17. The importance of PTAL as a measure stems from the fact that the use of PTAL is now deeply embedded in strategic and local planning. The London Plan uses PTAL as one of the key factors in determining the density of housing that is desired in different parts of London. This is based on the idea that areas with good public transport service are more suitable for intense development. Consequently, PTAL is a key determining factor in the feasible density and viability of development sites. Travel time mapping

2.18. The concept of time mapping is simple, and is based on using different colours to show on a map how long it takes to travel between one selected place and all other places. Travel time maps are produced to represent travel to or from a single point by highway or public transport modes. 2.19. Maps can be used to display the modelled travel times to or from a single point in a future year under a particular transport scenario. Alternatively maps can be prepared showing the change in travel times to or from a single point compared to the future year reference case. Catchment analysis

2.20. The catchment area of a place includes all the locations that are easy to reach from that place. If the place provides a service, like a shop, school or hospital, then most of the customers, students or patients will come from the catchment area. If the place is a house, the catchment area is where residents are most likely to work. The catchment area is used as an indicator for connectivity, because better transport makes the catchment area larger. 2.21. For any specific place of interest, the catchment area is identified by plotting the area that users can travel to up to a certain travel time. How this plotted area changes if new transport routes, stations etc. are introduced can then be considered. In many studies, a maximum travel time of 45 minutes to define the catchment area is used, since many people see this as an acceptable travel time for different types of journeys. For example, a commuting journey time threshold of 45 minutes is frequently used to compare connectivity in London as this is similar to the average observed commuting time. 2.22. This report also includes estimates of generalised time, which includes the in-vehicle journey time, walk time to access stops or stations, interchanges and crowding levels. This metric can be converted between cost and time by using the relevant value of time for each user class. Generalised time is the preferred measure for most of the analyses presented since it is most closely correlated to user experience. A commuting generalised time threshold of 75 minutes is judged to be comparable to the 45 minute journey time threshold.

2.23. Four separate measures of catchment analysis have been identified as relevant to the case for new river crossings:  Population access to employment  Business access to the labour market (working age population)  Business to business access  Business access to customers. 2.24. This report focuses primarily on the first two of these measures, derived from the morning peak models (0800-0900 hours). 2.25. The changes in connectivity presented in this report can be used to forecast changes in land use densities. However, at this stage the analysis is static and the quantum and distribution of population and employment growth is fixed. Sensitivity tests will be conducted using LonLUTI, a land-use and transport interaction model for London and/or a higher growth scenario taking into account the maximum development at expected sites in the study area. 2.26. A number of areas in the study area have been selected to illustrate changes in journey time and changes in connectivity as a result of the options. These include:  Thamesmead is an existing residential area with significant potential for intensification and a major development site at Tamesis Point.  Abbey Wood and Woolwich will be Crossrail stations and are both major focus points for residential and commercial development.  Belvedere and Plumstead are both established residential areas with no Crossrail stations.  The area north of the railway in Belvedere is expected to see some conversion of land to residential uses, accompanied by more intensified use of the Belvedere Industrial Area.  Key sites in the Royal Docks include the London City Airport, the Excel Centre at Custom House, the East London University campus and the forthcoming Advanced Business Park (ABP).  The area around Beckton station is characterised by low-medium density residential use. Gallions Reach is characterised by more recent proposals for higher density residential development.  Barking is a key town centre north of the river. The lack of a high quality public transport link between Barking and the Royal Docks is a known network gap.  The London Riverside Opportunity Area includes some areas for intensification of employment uses, such as the Sustainable Industries Park (SIP) and parts of Beam Park. Other areas are being converted to residential use such as Barking Riverside and potentially parts of Beam Park.  Rainham is an established residential community to the east of the study area.

Definition of options

2.27. The Option Assessment Report (Long List) sifted the original list of public transport options to the interim list as presented in Table 2.1.

2.28. This list also sets out the Railplan run IDs for each option, and the respective LTS runs IDs where applicable. 2.29. Buses would form the Do-Minimum public transport provision expected to be included with any proposed crossing package. The Indicative bus option includes a package of cross-river bus routes and route extensions to connect key destinations north and south of the river. It could also provide additional capacity or route extensions on several key bus corridors to support growth. These would include Thamesmead to Abbey Wood and Woolwich, routes into Belvedere station, and the link between Gallions Reach and Barking. They constitute a Do-Minimum scenario against which other fixed public transport options can be evaluated. 2.30. A more comprehensive bus option (Alternative bus) has also been considered, as an opportunity to test a number of bus links that have been proposed in the past to meet specific objectives. 2.31. However, the Indicative Cross River Bus Network has been taken forward in the Option Assessment Reports, given it contains a network of river crossing bus routes that form a common Do-Minimum for several workstreams. Plans for the bus network at this time are indicative and will be subject to further assessment, consultation and amendment.

Table 2.1: Recommended public transport short list of options Option Description Key rationale for inclusion/rejection Railplan run ID LTS run ID

ET102A43E 2031 7031dl04 Indicative Package of bus network Agreed common modelling basis for river crossings and North Bexley DM + Barking Ext + bus service changes workstreams Network Corrections

Alternative Alternative package of bus More links from areas south of Abbey Wood and Belvedere against ET901A43E 2031 - bus network service changes which to compare the impacts of rail-based options EBN v3

This is potentially the most deliverable and lowest-cost rail scheme DLR extension from Gallions ET302A43E 2031 DLR 1 that provides Thamesmead with a direct rail link to the Royal Docks 7031dl01 Reach station to Thamesmead DLR1 and Crossrail (at Custom House)

This option is included to test the relative local public transport ET303A43E 2031 - Tram Gallions Reach station to Tram 1 connectivity benefits of alternative options on the Gallions Reach or Tram1 Abbey Wood Barking Riverside to Thamesmead crossing alignments

DLR extension from Gallions This is a very difficult scheme option to deliver but is included to ET304A43E 2031 - DLR 2 Reach station to Abbey Wood allow like-for-like comparison with bus and tram links to Abbey Wood DLR2

Overground extension from ET305A43E 2031 7031dl05 This scheme has been proposed in the draft 2050 London LO 2 Barking Riverside to Abbey LO2 Infrastructure Plan as one step towards a future orbital network Wood

This is a very difficult scheme option to deliver but is included to ET906A43E B700 7031dl02 DLR from Barking to Abbey DLR 3 allow like-for-like comparison with other options between Abbey 2031 DLR3 Wood Wood and Barking

This option is included as it creates a high-quality public transport ET313A43E B700 7031dl07 Tram from Barking to Abbey spine through Thamesmead, linking to the key Crossrail stations at 2031 Woolwich Tram 2d Wood and Woolwich Abbey Wood and Woolwich, and providing residents of Thamesmead Tram + Tram 2 + with a high quality link to the town centre at Woolwich Add

Option Description Key rationale for inclusion/rejection Railplan run ID LTS run ID

Tram from Barking to Abbey ET307A43E 2031 - Could generate large connectivity benefits to some key growth areas Tram 3 Wood via Barking Riverside Tram3 but high cost so greater certainty over development impact is required and Belvedere

Overground extension to ET900A43E 2031 - create orbital rail route via Reasonable assumption of a feasible orbital service pattern should the LO3 v2 LO 3 Barking Riverside and Abbey orbital Overground service be pursued Wood to Bromley South

Tram-train from Barking to ET310A43E 2031 - Bromley South via Gallions This option is included to test the relative sub-regional connectivity TT1 TT 1 Reach station, Abbey Wood, benefits of a longer orbital option, and whether a lower cost option Southeastern loop, Grove Park would offer the same benefits as a heavy rail orbital services and Bromley North

New transit route from Ilford ET319A43E B700 7031dl06 to Bexleyheath via Barking, This option is included to test the relative sub-regional connectivity 2031 DLR6 DLR 6 Gallions Reach station, benefits of a lower frequency heavy rail orbital option with a high- Thamesmead and Abbey frequency, medium-capacity transit mode Wood

2.32. Appendix B presents sensitivity testing undertaken relating to the case for a Thamesmead-Woolwich branch in Tram option 2d.

3. Illustrative journey time changes

3.1. One method of illustrating the scale of the public transport options being evaluated is to look at the impact on public transport journey times between specific origins and destinations, and the associated complexity of these journeys. The following figures compare journeys in the 2031 Reference Case with (a) the river crossings including the Indicative bus network, (b) a short DLR extension to Thamesmead (DLR 1), and (c) a longer DLR extension between Barking and Abbey Wood (DLR 3). While these options represent only a small selection of the full interim list of public transport options, they provide a reasonable range of the potential scale of intervention. 3.2. Figure 3-1 shows the potential change in journey times between Thamesmead and Custom House. In 2031 residents of Thamesmead will have access to many parts of the Royal Docks with a single interchange to DLR or Crossrail at Woolwich. As such the reference case journey time between Thamesmead and Custom House is estimated at 39 minutes. This falls to 31 minutes with the introduction of bus links on the Gallions Reach crossing. The addition of a DLR crossing does not improve this journey time but leads to a much easier journey with no interchange required. Figure 3-1: Comparison of journey times between Thamesmead and Custom House Ref case Indicative bus network

DLR 1 DLR 3

3.3. Figure 3-2 shows the potential change in journey times between Abbey Wood and Barking. With the arrival of Crossrail, in the 2031 Reference Case it will be possible to undertake this journey in around 50 minutes with three separate rail and DLR trip stages. The provision of a direct bus route on the Gallions Reach crossing will not reduce this journey time significantly, but it does provide a much simpler and less costly journey option. The provision of a direct rail-based public transport link in the DLR 3 option reduces the journey time to 30 minutes (on a comparative basis including walking and wait time).

Figure 3-2: Comparison of journey times between Abbey Wood and Barking Ref case Indicative bus network

DLR 1 DLR 3

Travel time mapping

3.4. The journey time impacts above can be illustrated using travel time maps. The concept of time mapping is simple, and is based on using different colours to show on a map how long it takes to travel between one selected place and all other places. 3.5. It should be noted that while the travel time maps show actual (unweighted) journey time, the modelled assignment of trips uses generalised (weighted) journey time. Therefore the mapped shortest unweighted journey times may not reflect the public transport route choices that passengers are forecast to make. 3.6. Figure 3-3 shows morning peak travel times from Thamesmead North by public transport in the 2031 Reference Case. The journey time from Thamesmead to Woolwich is expected to be less than 20 minutes, and with the introduction of Crossrail this means that the some parts of central London will be accessible within 40 to 50 minutes travel time. The lack of cross-river links means that all parts of the London Riverside Opportunity Area are over one hour away from Thamesmead by public transport. 3.7. Figure 3-4 shows the equivalent morning peak travel times from Thamesmead North by public transport with the Indicative bus network. This would enable residents of Thamesmead to access much of Gallions Reach and Beckton in less than 30 minutes, and most parts of the London Riverside Opportunity Area in less than one hour. 3.8. Figure 3-5 shows the morning peak travel times with an orbital DLR link bringing Barking town centre to within 30 minutes travel time.

Figure 3-3: Morning peak travel times from Thamesmead by public transport (2031 Reference Case)

Figure 3-4: Morning peak travel times from Thamesmead by public transport (Indicative Bus)

Figure 3-5: Morning peak travel times from Thamesmead by public transport (DLR 3)

4. Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs)

Background

4.1. Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a measure of connectivity by public transport, which has been used in various planning processes in London for many years. For any selected place, PTAL suggests how well the place is connected to public transport services. 4.2. PTAL values are simple. They range from zero to six, where the highest value represents the best connectivity. The calculation takes into account the proximity of the stations and stops, and the public transport service levels available. A location will have a higher PTAL if:  It is at a short walking distance to the nearest stations or stops;  Waiting times at the nearest stations or stops are short;  More services pass at the nearest stations or stops;  There are major rail stations nearby; and  Any combination of all the above. 4.3. PTAL calculations make use of the walking network to access public transport stations and stops. For the purpose of this analysis, sections of walking network have been added to individual development sites where there is currently no walking network, such as Tamesis Point (assumed walking network not represented on maps below).

2031 Reference Case

4.4. PTAL values in the study area are currently characterised by high values of 6 in the larger rail hubs, notably Barking and Woolwich. PTAL values of 4-5 are observed around smaller hubs such as Beckton or Charlton. However, large areas of the available brownfield land in the riverside Opportunity Areas have PTAL values of 1 or below. 4.5. The 2031 Reference Case includes the introduction of Crossrail and therefore higher PTAL values in the walking catchments around Woolwich Arsenal and Abbey Wood (Figure 4-1). These increases in PTAL do not spread to many of the surrounding residential communities and areas of potential brownfield sites for development:  Some areas of Thamesmead North are well served by buses and have PTAL 3. By contrast, Thamesmead West has low PTAL values and is cut off from the Thamesmead North town centre due to the lack of direct walking or bus links.  Most of the development land at Tamesis Point is not connected to the existing public transport network.  Barking Riverside is expected to have a PTAL value of 2 around the Overground station.  The lower Roding valley between Gallions Reach and Barking has very low PTAL values. Yet, there are some pockets of PTAL 2, for example at the Gallions Reach Retail Park.

Figure 4-1: PTAL (2031 Reference Case)

Cross-river bus network changes

4.6. The Indicative bus network changes have some impact on PTAL values along the corridors approaching the Gallions Reach crossing (Figure 4-2). Some parts of Thamesmead North reach PTAL 4 but the improvements are localised and benefit only a small part of the Tamesis Point development land. Figure 4-2: PTAL (2031 Indicative bus network)

4.7. The bus routes serving the lower Roding valley north of Gallions Reach result in an increase in the area classed as PTAL 2-3. 4.8. Under the Indicative bus network assumptions, the route that currently terminates in Belvedere Industrial Area is diverted over the Belvedere crossing. This diversion of buses results in a loss of accessibility for this site, and a route to the Industrial Area should be re-instated in the next version of the indicative bus network modelled. 4.9. The Alternative bus network (Figure 4-3) increases bus frequencies on some corridors and therefore leads to slight increases in PTAL values, but it does not fundamentally affect the key development sites in the study area. Figure 4-3: PTAL (2031 Alternative bus network)

Gallions Reach local options

4.10. The short DLR 1 extension from Gallions Reach station to Thamesmead (Figure 4-4) has a very significant impact on PTALs at several key sites:  Thamesmead town centre becomes a PTAL 4 hub that would be suited to significant intensification.  The whole of the Tamesis Point site falls into the catchment of the proposed DLR stations in Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central. The former ensures that the least accessible part of Thamesmead West reaches PTAL 2.  The Armada Junction station is located at the edge of the Gallions Reach Retail Park, which becomes a PTAL 3 site. 4.11. Compared to the DLR 1 option, the short Tram 1 scheme from Gallions Reach station to Abbey Wood ( 4.12. Figure 4-5) leads to a smaller increase in PTAL values in Thamesmead North, Thamesmead West and Gallions Reach Retail Park. 22

4.13. DLR option 2 has the same impacts as DLR option 1 around Thamesmead town centre (Figure 4-6). The extension south to Abbey Wood leads increases the size of the high PTAL corridor along Harrow Manor Way and Carlyle Road. Figure 4-4: PTAL (2031 DLR 1)

Figure 4-5: PTAL (2031 Tram 1)

Figure 4-6: PTAL (2031 DLR 2)

4.14. The following figures show the relative PTAL impact of the three public transport options running between Barking and Abbey Wood. 4.15. The London Overground extension to Abbey Wood (LO 2, Figure 4-7) results in a marginal increase in the area of Barking Riverside classed as PTAL 2. There is no significant impact on PTAL values in Thamesmead. 4.16. The DLR 3 option from Barking to Abbey Wood via the Gallions Reach crossing (Figure 4-8) has a very significant impact on PTALs at several key sites:  All areas of Thamesmead (including Thamesmead West, Tamesis Point, Thamesmead Central) and the Harrow Manor Way corridor show marginally higher PTAL values than options DLR 1 and DLR 2. This reflects the enhanced service pattern in this option with two DLR routes operating on the Abbey Wood branch. In particular, this results in a larger proportion of the Tamesis Point development land reaching PTAL 2 and 3 values.  Access to the Lower Roding Valley area between Gallions Reach station and Barking is transformed with the DLR branch. This has the potential to create several PTAL 4 clusters surrounded by PTAL 2-3 areas along the indicative DLR route alignment, including Gallions Reach Retail Park, Claps Gate Lane and Jenkins Lane.  Pedestrian access across the River Roding to a Jenkins Lane station could also improve PTAL values for the Gascoignes Estate in Barking (subject to feasibility and not included in this assessment). 4.17. The Tram 2d option from Barking to Woolwich and Abbey Wood (Figure 4-9) has very similar impacts to DLR 3 in the lower Roding Valley and the key sites in Thamesmead.

Figure 4-7: PTAL (2031 LO 2)

Figure 4-8: PTAL (2031 DLR 3)

Figure 4-9: PTAL (2031 Tram 2d)

Belvedere local options

4.18. The Tram 3 option serves a very different set of Opportunity Areas than the options using the Gallions Reach crossing (Figure 4-10). It has very significant impacts in terms of PTAL values in these areas:  The tram route increases PTAL values across the Barking Riverside development site, increasing the value around the Overground station from PTAL 2 to 3, and increasing the eastern side of the site along Choats Road to PTAL 2.  Using the tram to link across Dagenham Dock station creates an area of PTAL 3-4 around the station, the Ford Stamping Plant and the western part of the Beam Park site.  The tram improves PTAL values around Marsh Way to around PTAL 2-3. It is assumed that the last stop before the crossing is located near to the CEME facility and therefore the riverside sites are still some distance from the tram.  On the south side of the river there is a large increase in the area classed as PTAL 4 around Belvedere station, and Yarnton Way becomes a PTAL 3 corridor between Belvedere and Harrow Manor Way.

Figure 4-10: PTAL (2031 Tram 3)

Gallions Reach strategic options

4.19. The three strategic options tested are essentially extensions of the above schemes. Since the locations of stops in the study area and the frequency of the services remain virtually unchanged, the impacts on the key sites in the study area will be the same. Additional PTAL plots of the three strategic options have therefore not been included.

5. Catchment analysis - Access to jobs

Background

5.1. This chapter sets out the changes in access to jobs that would result from the interim public transport options. The comparisons below are all based on the 2031 AM peak model, and the connectivity maps are expressed as generalised (weighted) time.

2031 Reference Case

5.2. Figure 5-1 shows the expected pattern of access to jobs in east and southeast London in the 2031 Reference Case scenario. The cumulative effect of public transport investment (Crossrail, Jubilee Line and DLR) is that large parts of inner east London will be within 75 minutes generalised time of over 2 million jobs. The Royal Docks and Woolwich will also benefit from access to around 1-2 millions jobs within 75 minutes generalised time, and Abbey Wood over 500k jobs. 5.3. On the other hand, the vast majority of the riverside OAPF areas of London Riverside, Thamesmead and Bexley Riverside will have access to fewer than 100k jobs in 75 minutes generalised time. This very poor level of public transport connectivity is expected to restrict medium-capacity residential development in these areas. Figure 5-1: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time (2031 Reference Case)

Cross-river bus network changes

5.4. Figure 5-2 shows the equivalent pattern of access to jobs with new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere and with the Indicative bus network. At this scale, only the most significant changes in the zones in close proximity to the crossings are visible. Figure 5-3 shows the change in access jobs at a more graduated scale. The Indicative bus network increases access to jobs by 50-100k in Thamesmead and

Gallions Reach. The wide spread of the bus network results in smaller changes in access to jobs over a wide area, benefitting some areas that currently have very poor access to jobs. Figure 5-2: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Indicative bus)

Figure 5-3: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Indicative bus vs ref case)

5.5. The Alternative bus network includes several bus network changes to improve cross- river public transport accessibility from several areas of Bexley and Havering. Figure 5-4 shows the change in access to jobs as a result of the alternative bus network

relative to the Indicative network. There is a net increase in access to jobs although this appears to be partly as a result of improved access to Crossrail rather than cross- river access. Figure 5-4: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Alternative bus vs Indicative bus)

5.6. The change in access to jobs for a number of selected origins is shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Case Indicative bus Alternative bus Thamesmead 60 134 153 Belvedere 49 63 69 Abbey Wood 783 788 800 Plumstead 197 214 214 Beckton 340 343 343 Gallions Reach 632 680 684 Barking Riverside 37 37 37 Beam Park 38 63 69 Rainham 41 51 51

Gallions Reach local options

5.7. The following figures show the change in access to jobs forecast as a result of local rail-based public transport options around Gallions Reach. In each case the change is plotted relative to the Indicative bus network. 5.8. DLR option 1 (Figure 5-5) generates a significant additional increase in access to jobs for Gallions Reach, Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central. These areas have access to 150-200k jobs within 75 minutes generalised time, putting them on a par with nearby residential areas such as Plumstead and East Ham. 5.9. No change is registered in the actual Tamesis Point development area located between Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central. This is due to network coding issues in what is currently vacant undeveloped land, and separate analysis has been undertaken to estimate future public transport accessibility for this site. 5.10. By contrast, Tram option 1 (Figure 5-6) represents a much lesser connectivity improvement since passengers for central London are required to interchange to access the DLR at Gallions Reach station. 5.11. DLR option 2 (Figure 5-7) runs from Thamesmead to Abbey Crossrail station providing very significant connectivity benefits to the spine of housing along Harrow Manor Way. Figure 5-5: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-6: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-7: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 2 vs Indicative bus)

5.12. The change in access to jobs for the selected origins is shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus DLR 1 Tram 1 DLR 2 Reference Case Thamesmead 60 134 159 136 157 Belvedere 49 63 63 63 63 Abbey Wood 783 788 788 797 799 Plumstead 197 214 214 214 214 Beckton 340 343 336 343 336 Gallions Reach 632 680 632 660 623 Barking Riverside 37 37 37 37 37 Beam Park 38 63 63 63 63 Rainham 41 51 51 51 51

5.13. Several of the public transport options connect Barking to Abbey Wood. London Overground option 2 provides a cross-river link between Barking and Abbey Wood via Barking Riverside and Thamesmead. As shown in Figure 5-8, the connectivity improvement of this option is limited. The potential frequency of this service is constrained to 4 trains per hour and it does not cater for interchange with the DLR network. 5.14. DLR option 3 and Tram option 2 represent alternative public transport schemes linking Barking and Abbey Wood via a Gallions Reach crossing. Both options could operate at a higher frequency and provide additional interchange to the DLR network. 5.15. DLR option 3 (Figure 5-9) generates a very significant increase in access to jobs for several areas. Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central gain access to over 200k jobs within 75 minutes generalised time. The DLR link between the Royal Docks and Barking improves access to jobs for all of the residential areas north of the Royal Docks, and opens up access from areas such as Barking Town Quay. 5.16. Tram option 2d (Figure 5-10) generates a very significant increase in access to jobs for Thamesmead due to the link to Crossrail at Woolwich Arsenal. The change in access in jobs on the northern side of the river is lower than with the DLR 3 option because of the need to interchange at Gallions Reach station to access the DLR network.

Figure 5-8: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (LO 2 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-9: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 3 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-10: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 2d vs Indicative bus)

5.17. The change in access to jobs for the selected origins is summarised in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus LO 2 DLR 3 Tram 2d Reference Case Thamesmead 60 134 90 154 131 Belvedere 49 63 63 63 67 Abbey Wood 783 788 796 838 810 Plumstead 197 214 213 214 217 Beckton 340 343 342 363 351 Gallions Reach 632 680 669 756 689 Barking Riverside 37 37 39 37 37 Beam Park 38 63 63 63 63 Rainham 41 51 51 51 51

Belvedere local options

5.18. The interim public transport options include a single tram scheme operating over the Belvedere crossing. This option links a number of significant development sites in the key riverside Opportunity Areas. Tram option 3 (Figure 5-11) delivers improved access to jobs in Belvedere, Beam Park and Barking Riverside. Figure 5-11: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 3 vs Indicative bus)

5.19. The change in access to jobs for the selected origins is shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Case Indicative bus Tram 3 Thamesmead 60 134 135 Belvedere 49 63 63 Abbey Wood 783 788 793 Plumstead 197 214 214 Beckton 340 343 345 Gallions Reach 632 680 680 Barking Riverside 37 37 57 Beam Park 38 63 77 Rainham 41 51 52

Gallions Reach strategic options

5.20. London Overground option 3 represents one possible solution for creating an outer London orbital rail service using a cross-river link between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead. As shown in Figure 5-12, the improvement in access to jobs is relatively small given the high cost of this scheme. This is partly due to the low frequency of the route (4 tph). 5.21. Tram-train option 1 represents an equivalent concept using tram-train technology. This option generates a similar increase in access to jobs around the stations served in southeast London, but it delivers a greater increase in access to jobs in Thamesmead and Barking where it can run as a tram at a higher frequency (Figure 5-13). 5.22. The final strategic option is the orbital DLR 6 option operating over the Gallions Reach crossing at high frequency. The resulting uplift in access to jobs (Figure 5-14) is spread widely along the alignment and along connecting rail links. Figure 5-12: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (LO 3 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-13: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (TT 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 5-14: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 6 vs Indicative bus)

5.23. The change in access to jobs for the selected origins is shown in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus LO 3 TT 1 DLR 6 Reference Case Thamesmead 60 134 90 126 169 Belvedere 49 63 70 70 63 Abbey Wood 783 788 798 808 789 Plumstead 197 214 214 214 214 Beckton 340 343 342 344 350 Gallions Reach 632 680 669 684 779 Barking Riverside 37 37 41 37 37 Beam Park 38 63 63 63 64 Rainham 41 51 51 51 51

6. Catchment analysis - Access to the labour market

Background

6.1. This chapter sets out the changes in access to the labour market (defined as working age population) that would result from the interim public transport options. The comparisons below are all based on the 2031 AM peak model, and the connectivity maps are expressed as generalised time. Tabular comparisons of connectivity expressed in actual (unweighted) journey time are provided for several selected employment areas.

2031 Reference Case

6.2. Figure 6-1 shows the expected pattern of access to the labour market in east and southeast London in the 2031 Reference Case scenario. Many parts of central London, notably the City, will have access to a labour market of over 2 million persons within 75 minutes generalised time. Other major centres in east London like Canary Wharf and Stratford will have access to 1.5 million potential workers in the 75 minute threshold, while the Royal Docks and Woolwich will fall into the 500k to 1m bracket. 6.3. All of the other riverside OAPF areas of London Riverside, Thamesmead and Bexley Riverside are expected to have access to fewer than 250k in 75 minutes generalised time. This level of public transport connectivity is not expected to lead to significant amounts of higher density non-residential development. Figure 6-1: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time (2031 Reference Case)

Cross-river bus network changes

6.4. Figure 6-2 shows the equivalent pattern of access to workers with new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere and with the Indicative bus network. The change in access to the labour market can be observed in Thamesmead, Belvedere and Dagenham, although none of the key riverside Opportunity Areas exceed the 0.5m threshold. 6.5. Figure 6-3 shows the change in access to the labour market at a more graduated scale. The spread of the bus network leads to a change over a wide area stretching from Barking to Bexleyheath. 6.6. Figure 6-4 shows the change in access to the labour market with the Alternative bus network relative to the Indicative bus network. City Airport would benefit from a direct link to Thamesmead. The rationalisation of north-south orbital routes would benefit businesses in Thamesmead, Beam Park and Bexleyheath. Figure 6-2: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time (Indicative bus)

Figure 6-3: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (Indicative bus vs ref case)

Figure 6-4: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (Alternative bus vs Indicative bus)

6.7. The change in access to the labour market from selected destinations is shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Case Indicative bus Alternative bus ABP 746 785 785 Barking 943 965 968 SIP 93 94 93 Beam Park 60 113 90 Woolwich 821 821 821 Abbey Wood 476 485 503 Belvedere IA 59 47 55

Gallions Reach local options

6.8. The following figures show the change in access to the labour market that is forecast as a result of local rail-based public transport options around Gallions Reach. In each case the change is plotted relative to the Indicative bus network. 6.9. DLR option 1 (Figure 6-5) would provide access from high density residential areas to Gallions Reach and Thamesmead. Access to the labour market for businesses in these areas would increase by around 150k to over 300-400k workers within 75 minutes generalised time. 6.10. Tram option 1 (Figure 6-6) does not lead to an equivalent increase in access to the labour market. This is due to the additional interchange between DLR and tram required at Gallions Reach station. 6.11. DLR option 2 (Figure 6-7) provides some additional connectivity to employment areas around Abbey Wood. The impact is lower than in Thamesmead since Abbey Wood already has good labour market access as a result of Crossrail.

Figure 6-5: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 6-6: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 6-7: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 2 vs Indicative bus)

6.12. The change in access to the labour market from selected destinations is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus DLR 1 Tram 1 DLR 2 Reference Case ABP 746 785 785 786 791 Barking 943 965 965 965 965 SIP 93 94 94 94 94 Beam Park 60 113 113 113 113 Woolwich 821 821 821 821 821 Abbey Wood 476 485 484 485 508 Belvedere IA 59 47 47 47 47

6.13. The following figures present the labour market access changes that would result from a new Barking to Abbey Wood cross-river public transport link. London Overground option 2 (Figure 6-8) is forecast to lead to only a very minor improvement in businesses’ access to the labour market. 45

6.14. DLR option 3 (Figure 6-9) is expected to have a much greater impact on labour market access. For example, ABP in the Royal Docks would see the number of potential workers able to access the site in 75 minutes generalised time increase by over 100k to 900k and Thamesmead town centre by over 170k to 420k. Figure 6-8: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (LO 2 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 6-9: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 3 vs Indicative bus)

6.15. Tram option 2d (Figure 6-10) can deliver some of the same improvement in access to the labour market, notably in Thamesmead and Barking Town Quay. Figure 6-10: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 2d vs Indicative bus)

6.16. The change in labour market access for selected destinations is shown in Table 6.3. Table 6.3: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus LO 2 DLR 3 Tram 2d Reference Case ABP 746 785 775 894 811 Barking 943 965 960 973 1,027 SIP 93 94 94 94 94 Beam Park 60 113 113 113 113 Woolwich 821 821 821 819 836 Abbey Wood 476 485 501 557 517 Belvedere IA 59 47 47 47 47

Belvedere local options

6.17. Tram option 3 would link the employment sites in London riverside and Bexley riverside to public transport interchanges at Abbey Wood and Barking. Labour market

access would improve as a result to the point that some parts of Beam Park and SIP would have access to >250k workers within 75 minutes generalised time. Figure 6-11: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 3 vs Indicative bus)

6.18. The change in labour market access expressed in actual journey time is shown in Table 6.4. The Belvedere tram would increase the number of workers living within 45 minutes of Beam Park and Belvedere Industrial Area significantly. Table 6.4: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Case Indicative bus Tram 3 ABP 746 785 786 Barking 943 965 983 SIP 93 94 103 Beam Park 60 113 150 Woolwich 821 821 821 Abbey Wood 476 485 495 Belvedere IA 59 47 64

Gallions Reach strategic options

6.19. Figure 6-12 shows the change in labour market access predicted as a result of London Overground option 3. While there are increases observed around Crayford

and Sidcup, the impact of the cross-river link on access to labour is limited. This is partly due to the low frequency of the route (4 tph). 6.20. Tram-train option 1 (Figure 6-13) generates a greater improvement in access to the labour market in Abbey Wood, Thamesmead and Barking since it can operate at a higher frequency in this section of the route. 6.21. DLR option 6 (Figure 6-14) demonstrates a significant change in labour market access along the length of the route from Ilford to Bexleyheath. This orbital alignment has a high frequency and provides interchange with all of the major radial routes in the study area. Figure 6-12: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (LO 3 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 6-13: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (TT 1 vs Indicative bus)

Figure 6-14: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 6 vs Indicative bus)

6.22. The change in labour market access for the selected destinations is shown in Table 6.5. Table 6.5: Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s) Origin area 2031 Indicative bus LO 3 TT 1 DLR 6 Reference Case ABP 746 785 775 799 954 Barking 943 965 961 998 988 SIP 93 94 94, 94 94 Beam Park 60 113 113 113 113 Woolwich 821 821 823 823 819 Abbey Wood 476 485 508 514 492 Belvedere IA 59 47 47 47 50

7. Thamesmead Travel Options Pie Analysis

Background

7.1. The Travel Options Pie (TOP) is a tool developed by Transport for London to display graphically the multi-modal travel options available to residents from a given point in London. The TOP methodology maps the areas of London that are accessible within a defined journey time, in this case 45 minutes, from a place in London by different modes. In this chapter, journey time is defined as the actual journey time (unweighted and excluding monetary costs). 7.2. In this report, access is categorised by three transport modes:  Accessible by car only  Accessible by public transport only  Accessible by car or public transport 7.3. Active travel modes are not considered in this analysis since an adequate representation of the cross-river walk and cycle network was not yet available at the time of the analysis. 7.4. The second element of the methodology calculates the jobs available within the areas accessible within 45 minutes, and displays these as a pie chart. The size of the pie shows the relative volume of jobs accessible within 45 minutes and the slices of the pie show the breakdown of connectivity by possible transport modes. 7.5. The importance of improving connectivity for Thamesmead is central to the growth objectives of this project. Existing residents have poor highway and public transport connectivity to other areas of London. It will only be possible to maximise use of the available development land at Tamesis Point and Thamesmead town centre if the area experiences a significant step change in public transport access. Therefore this chapter focuses on the change in access to jobs from Thamesmead.

2031 Reference Case

7.6. Figure 7-1 shows the TOP in the morning peak for the 2031 Reference Case. Overall residents have access to fewer than 600,000 jobs in 45 minutes travel time. The vast majority of these jobs (88%) can only be reached by car. In absolute terms this equates to around 70,000 jobs that can be accessed by public transport. 7.7. Access by car to jobs north of the river is limited to some areas near the Blackwall- Silvertown Tunnels and around the M25. Given the time taken to reach Woolwich by bus, access by public transport to jobs north of the river is limited to Custom House (Crossrail) and several stations on the Woolwich Arsenal branch of the DLR.

Figure 7-1: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Reference Case, AM peak)

Cross-river bus network changes

7.8. Figure 7-2 shows the equivalent Thamesmead TOP in the morning peak in 2031 with the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings, and the Indicative Bus network. The number of jobs accessible to residents within 45 minutes increases from 600,000 to over 1.5 million. The provision of the two river crossings opens up car access to all of northeast London. The size of this 1.5 million jobs car catchment remains stable across the public transport options. 7.9. As in the 2031 Reference Case, the vast majority of the accessible jobs (87%) can only be reached by car. In absolute terms this equates to around 200,000 jobs accessible by public transport within 45 minutes from Thamesmead. The Indicative bus network opens up access to jobs in the Royal Docks, Beckton and Barking. However, some of the employment areas in the London Riverside area remain outside the 45 minute job catchment area. 7.10. Figure 7-3 shows the equivalent TOP for the alternative bus network. There is a significant increase in the number of job accessible by public transport to 17%, as a result of Bexleyheath town centre and parts of the Isle of Dogs falling into the 45 minute catchment area.

Figure 7-2: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Indicative Bus, AM peak)

Figure 7-3: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Alternative bus, AM peak)

Gallions Reach local options

7.11. The different fixed link public transport options for the Gallions Reach crossing open up access to different areas of employment. The proportion of jobs accessible by public transport under option DLR 1 increases marginally to 14% with improved access to parts of the DLR network (Figure 7-4). By contrast, when measured in actual journey time, the Tram 1 option offers little additional public transport access over the Indicative bus network (Figure 7-5). 7.12. Option DLR 2 (Figure 7-6) provides additional access to jobs in Canary Wharf and in locations around the North Kent rail line, increasing the proportion of jobs accessible by public transport to 17%. 7.13. Comparing the three options running from Barking to Abbey Wood, it is option Tram 2d (Figure 7-9) that increases the proportion of jobs accessible to 26%, the highest of all the options assessed. Due to the faster access to Crossrail at Woolwich, all of Canary Wharf and even Whitechapel fall within the 45-minute journey time threshold. 7.14. DLR 3 (Figure 7-8) also has a reasonably high proportion of jobs accessible by public transport at 18%. 7.15. Option LO 2 does not have an interchange with the DLR but opens up access to some parts of London Riverside due to the direct connection to Barking Riverside (Figure 7-7). In total only 13% of jobs are accessible by public transport within the 45 minute catchment under this option. Figure 7-4: Thamesmead TOP (2031 DLR 1, AM peak)

Figure 7-5: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Tram 1, AM peak)

Figure 7-6: Thamesmead TOP (2031 DLR 2, AM peak)

Figure 7-7: Thamesmead TOP (2031 LO 2, AM peak)

Figure 7-8: Thamesmead TOP (2031 DLR 3, AM peak)

Figure 7-9: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Tram 2d, AM peak)

Belvedere local options

7.16. Tram option 3 provides public transport access from Thamesmead to parts of the London Riverside Opportunity Area around Dagenham Dock and Beam Park (Figure 7-10). This does not have a material impact on the proportion of jobs accessible by public transport within the 45-minute catchment.

Figure 7-10: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Tram 3, AM peak)

Gallions Reach strategic options

7.17. None of the strategic public transport options assessed increase the proportion of jobs accessible in 45 minutes by public transport beyond the level of access of DLR 3. Notably, none of the strategic options are sufficient to put central London jobs within 45 minutes of Thamesmead. 7.18. The orbital Overground scheme (Figure 7-11) opens up access to some jobs in Barking and around the North Kent Line, but has little impact on the 13% proportion of jobs accessible in the 45-minute catchment. The equivalent tram-train option TT 1 also has a 13% proportion of jobs accessible by public transport, providing access to more jobs in the Royal Docks but not to London Riverside (Figure 7-12). 7.19. The effect of the strategic DLR orbital corridor (option DLR 6) can clearly be seen visually in Figure 7-13, showing the public transport corridor stretching from Ilford to Bexleyheath. Under this option, 18% of the jobs are accessible by public transport, covering the length of the orbital corridor between Ilford and Bexleyheath.

Figure 7-11: Thamesmead TOP (2031 LO 3, AM peak)

Figure 7-12: Thamesmead TOP (2031 TT 1, AM peak)

Figure 7-13: Thamesmead TOP (2031 DLR 6, AM peak)

8. Public transport demand (fixed demand matrices)

Background

8.1. The previous two chapters focus on quantifying changes in connectivity or potential travel opportunity. Improving public transport connectivity links directly to the growth objectives of the river crossings east of Silvertown. 8.2. The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the initial findings on the forecast changes in public transport demand. As set out in chapter 2, Railplan tests using full variable demand matrices are only available for the Indicative bus, DLR 1 and DLR 3 options. However, all of the interim options have been tested in Railplan using fixed demand matrices (from the Indicative bus network scenario). The results of the tests using the fixed demand matrices should be treated with caution since they do capture the majority of variation in demand on sections of the network covered by the Indicative network, but they only partially capture changes in demand on other sections of the network. 8.3. Railplan was used to test the assignment of all of the interim options in 2031. The demand matrices for all of these runs are derived from the Indicative bus network. As a result, the demand does include a cross-river re-distribution of trips, for example within the area between Barking and Abbey Wood. However, it does not include wider mode shift effects or re-distribution effects on parts of the network not covered by the Indicative bus network. As such, the findings for all options except the Indicative bus network represent an under-estimation of the potential demand. 8.4. The findings of the rail-based public transport options are compared to the Indicative network. The relative attractiveness of fixed link options manifests itself in the number of passengers who switch from cross-river bus services but also the additional demand ‘generated’. Note that since this chapter relates to the assignment of fixed demand matrices, the additional trips are not net new trips but re-assignment of trips over a wider geographical area.

Cross-river bus network changes

8.5. The Indicative bus network represents a step change in connectivity for communities near to the river. The total number of bus river crossings in the AM peak is estimated at 3,080 on the Gallions Reach crossing and 2,940 on the Belvedere crossing (see Table 8.1). 8.6. It is assumed in the Indicative network that bus routes 174 and 180 will be extended across the Belvedere crossing. The predicted AM peak patronage on this crossing is close to the modelled capacity. 8.7. Three completely new bus routes are assumed to serve Gallions Reach. The predicted AM peak patronage on each route is as follows:  Route A Barking Riverside to Plumstead – 1,150  Route B Barking to Woolwich – 1,010  Route C Barking to Abbey Wood – 1,580 8.8. All three routes are therefore predicted to be reasonably well-utilised. The benefits are not solely related to new cross-river links. On the north side, the routes provide new links from Barking and barking Riverside to the Royal Docks. On the south side, 62

the routes provide additional capacity on the busy corridors from Thamesmead into Crossrail at Woolwich and Abbey Wood. Table 8.1: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak) Measure Indicative bus Alternative bus Cross-river bus trips 6,020 6,220 Cross-river transit trips - - Total cross-river trips (bus and transit) 6,020 6,220 Other patronage effects Bus route D: 1,690

8.9. The alternative bus network increases the predicted cross-river bus flows by an additional 200 trips. However, the findings suggest that there are significant benefits un-related to the crossings. The proposed changes to route B11 (with mitigation through changes to route 244) generate additional demand on the corridor from Bexleyheath to Crossrail at Abbey Wood. 8.10. New route D is estimated to attract almost 1,700 passengers in the AM peak. North of the river, it follows the proposed East London Transit alignment between the Belvedere crossing and Romford. This alignment, as set out in the LB Havering Local Plan, draws some patronage away from route 174 and provides new north-south orbital links in the borough.

Gallions Reach local options

8.11. Several options were tested that supplement the cross-river bus network on the Gallions Reach crossing (Table 8.2). The provision of DLR 1 to Thamesmead is estimated to result in 900 cross-river bus passengers switching to DLR, supplemented by 1,000 additional cross-river trips. There is strong peak demand on the DLR extension from Thamesmead towards Crossrail at Custom House and the Jubilee Line at Canning Town. 8.12. In contrast to the DLR 1 extension, the provision of a tram across the Gallions Reach crossing is estimated to result in 500 cross-river bus passengers switching to tram, supplemented by 400 additional cross-river trips. The requirement for an additional interchange between tram and DLR at Gallions Reach station means that the Gallions Reach crossing is a less attractive option for accessing Crossrail or the Jubilee Line from Thamesmead. The route of option Tram 1 does, however, serve the busy Harrow Manor Way corridor between Thamesmead and Abbey Wood, and is estimated to carry around 1,000 non-cross-river passengers in the AM peak. 8.13. The DLR 2 extension running all the way to Abbey Wood is estimated to generate an additional 500 cross-river trips in the AM peak compared to DLR 1. The Railplan forecasts indicate that passengers boarding at stops east of Thamesmead town centre would benefit from the direct to Crossrail at Custom House. Yet it is also forecast that option DLR 2 will attract around 500 non-cross-river trips thus strengthening the Thamesmead to Abbey Wood corridor.

Table 8.2: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak) Measure Indicative DLR 1 Tram 1 DLR 2 bus Cross-river bus trips 6,020 5,140 5,510 4,820 Cross-river transit trips - 1,860 920 2,360 Total cross-river trips (bus 6,020 7,000 6,430 7,180 and transit) 960 trips 830 trips Other patronage effects - - (Thamesmead (Thamesmead to Abbey Wood) to Abbey Wood)

8.14. Looking at the options to serve the Barking to Abbey Wood alignment, the Overground extension LO 2 (running in a tunnel between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead) would attract around 700 trips from bus services on the Gallions Reach crossing (Table 8.3). It also generates additional cross-river demand of around 1,500 trips in the AM peak, although not serving the same intermediate areas as the Gallions Reach public transport options. 8.15. Option DLR 3 also runs from Barking to Abbey Wood but over the Gallions Reach crossing. It would attract around 1,400 trips from bus services on the Gallions Reach crossing. This option also has substantial patronage effects unrelated to the river crossings including the Barking to Royal Docks link, Thamesmead to Abbey Wood and a frequency increase for existing passengers between Gallions Reach and Canning Town. 8.16. Under option Tram 2d, a substantial proportion of cross-river bus trips (around 2,100 trips) are forecast to switch to tram. The passenger benefits extend well beyond the cross-river alignment, notably providing Thamesmead with a link to Woolwich for Crossrail and the town centre. Table 8.3: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak) Measure Indicati LO 2 DLR 3 Tram 2d ve bus Cross-river bus trips 6,020 5,300 4,600 3,880 Cross-river transit - 2,290 3,060 3,210 trips Total cross-river 6,020 7,590 7,660 7,090 trips (bus and transit) 7,000 (Barking to Royal >11,000 (Barking to Docks, Thamesmead to Royal Docks, Other patronage - - Abbey Wood, and Thamesmead to effects frequency increase to Woolwich and to Canning Town) Abbey Wood)

Belvedere local options

8.17. The Tram 3 option crossing the river at Belvedere is estimated to result in around 900 cross-river bus passengers switching to tram, supplemented by another 1,000 new cross-river trips. However, the cross-river trips only make up around one third of the predicted demand. Railplan predicts an additional 3,700 non-cross-river trips in the AM peak on the Barking – Barking Riverside – Beam Park corridor, and between Belvedere and Abbey Wood. Table 8.4: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak) Measure Indicative bus Tram 3 Cross-river bus trips 6,020 5,140 Cross-river transit trips - 1,860 Total cross-river trips (bus and transit) 6,020 7,000 3,690 (Barking – Barking Riverside – Beam - Other patronage effects Park, and Belvedere – Abbey Wood)

Gallions Reach strategic options

8.18. The strategic options tested all extend significantly beyond the geographic scale of the Indicative bus network. Frequency increases on existing sections of the network will be captured in the modelled response. Yet the re-distribution and mode shift effects of these options will not be considered in full. 8.19. The Overground extension LO 3 represents a major scheme for all of southeast London, and as a result there are a whole host of stations that benefit from improved frequencies or new direct links. As a local cross-river link, the LO 3 extension is expected to attract around 1,000 cross-river bus passengers from the bus routes serving the Gallions Reach crossing, supplemented by another 2,500 new cross-river trips (see

Table 8.5). Select link analysis of the LO 3 cross-river link shows that Railplan forecasts that many users will use Crossrail and the Overground to access Barking Riverside from central London rather than via Barking. 8.20. The Tram-train 1 option has similarly wide-ranging impacts as the Overground extension LO 3. The tram operation over the Gallions Reach crossing is estimated to attract 1,700 cross-river passengers from the bus services, supplemented by an additional 500 new cross-river trips. The total AM peak patronage is forecast at 10,300, meaning that non-cross-river trips make up over three quarters of demand, including a range of trips generated on diverse sections of the southeast London rail network.

Table 8.5: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak) Measure Indicative LO 3 Tram-train 1 DLR 6 bus Cross-river bus trips 6,020 5,010 4,300 4,320 Cross-river transit trips - 3,550 2,220 5,500 Total cross-river trips 6,020 8,550 6,530 9,820 (bus and transit) Approx. 8,000 860 (Barking to Royal Approx. 6,500 additional Docks, (Ilford – Barking – Other patronage rail trips on Thamesmead to Royal Docks, and - effects the other Abbey Wood, and Thamesmead – sections of southeast London Abbey Wood – the route rail frequency Bexleyheath) increases

8.21. The DLR 6 option is estimated to divert around 1,600 passengers from cross-river bus services on the Gallions Reach (and Belvedere) crossing, while generating around 3,900 new cross-river trips. The total uplift in AM peak patronage is estimated at around 12,000, which means that cross-river trips account for around 45% of the demand. This option has very significant transformative impacts north and south of the river creating new high-frequency orbital links. For example, it provides a high- frequency feeder from Bexleyheath into Crossrail at Abbey Wood. It should be noted that the fixed demand matrix forecasts of patronage on the DLR 6 option are likely to be the least reliable of the options since this option includes a large number of new strategic links.

9. Additional analysis

Initial conclusions and further analysis

9.1. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis presented in chapters 3 to 8 of this report. The test of a Indicative and an Alternative bus network has been a useful exercise, and can inform the definition of an indicative cross-river bus network for the next version that is modelled. Several of the public transport options can be ruled out of the short list at this stage, while further analysis has been undertaken to understand more about the remaining options. 9.2. The further analysis presented in the chapter includes:  Alternative DLR service pattern (DLR 1a);  Trips and mode share (variable demand matrices);  Public transport trip distribution impacts from variable demand modelling; and  Assigned public transport demand (variable demand matrices). Gallions Reach local options – initial conclusions

9.3. DLR 1 represents a scheme that could be delivered as part of the Gallions Reach crossing and that provides a very significant localised boost in connectivity to Thamesmead West and North. These areas have access to 150-200k jobs within 75 minutes generalised time, putting them on a par with nearby residential areas such as Plumstead and East Ham. 9.4. DLR 1 would offer significant development opportunities. Thamesmead town centre would be transformed into a PTAL 4 transport hub, with the potential for significant mixed use and medium-density residential development (~10,000 homes). Further development opportunities exist on the northern side of the river near to the proposed Armada Junction station. DLR option 1 should be taken forward for further analysis. 9.5. However, the proposed service pattern in DLR option 1 could involve a reduction in DLR frequency between Gallions Reach and Beckton compared to the 2031 Reference Case, resulting in a marginal reduction in connectivity to established residential communities in parts of Newham. In practice many of these areas will experience a significant improvement in connectivity between now and 2031 as a result of DLR capacity enhancements and Crossrail services from Custom House. However, this reduction in connectivity does muddy the waters when trying to quantify the benefits of a DLR extension to Thamesmead. Therefore an additional DLR option 1a has been tested where the Thamesmead extension is a net additional service without a negative impact on Beckton, and is presented in this chapter. 9.6. The provision of a DLR link on the Gallions Reach crossing provides the opportunity for further network extensions in the medium term. DLR 3 includes an extension southwards through the spine of Thamesmead to Abbey Wood, and an extension northwards to Barking, filling the Barking-Royal Docks gap in the public transport network and opening up the Lower Roding Valley for development. 9.7. DLR option 3 generates a very significant increase in access to jobs for several areas, and access to the labour market for businesses. Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Central gain access to over 200k jobs within 75 minutes generalised

time. The forthcoming ABP in the Royal Docks would see the number of potential workers able to access the site in 75 minutes generalised time increase by over 100k to 900k and Thamesmead town centre by over 170k to 420k. In spite of the potentially very significant delivery challenges relating to the DLR interchanges at Abbey Wood and Barking, the DLR 3 alignment meets the core project objectives, and should be taken forward for further analysis. 9.8. By contrast, it is proposed that DLR 2 is not taken forward to the short list of options. The DLR could be extended in an incremental fashion, and while DLR 2 does represent a potential extension of DLR 1, there is an equally strong case for the extension northwards to Barking. As such it is the relative impacts of the different Barking to Abbey Wood options that should be the focus of the additional analysis. 9.9. The evidence presented shows clearly that Tram option 1 provides less of a connectivity boost to Thamesmead than DLR option 1 or 2. The cross-river DLR link provides residents south of the river with fast access to Custom House and Canning Town for interchange to Crossrail and the Jubilee Line, whereas the tram requires an additional interchange between tram and DLR at Gallions Reach station. It is therefore proposed that Tram 1 is not taken forward to the short list of options. 9.10. Tram option 2d, by contrast, should be assessed in more detail since the connectivity impacts are comparable to DLR option 3. Tram 2d even exceeds DLR 3 in the Travel Options Pie analysis, with 26% of jobs accessible by public transport in 45 minutes. The inclusion of a Woolwich branch provides fast access from Thamesmead to Crossrail via Woolwich Arsenal, as well as to Woolwich town centre, which offers a range of services and facilities that are not available in Custom House. This Crossrail interchange at Woolwich results inall of Canary Wharf and the City fringe area around Whitechapel station falling within the 45 minute catchment of Thamesmead. 9.11. The Thamesmead to Woolwich section of this option could potentially be constructed in advance of the river crossing to provide a relatively low cost light rail link from Thamesmead to Crossrail and to Woolwich town centre. 9.12. The concept of a London Overground extension to Abbey Wood does not deliver the same scale of connectivity benefits as options DLR 3 or Tram 2d. This is mainly due to the low frequency of 4 trains per hour, but also the limited choice of direct links offered when compared to, for example, DLR 3. However, since the longer term prospect of an outer orbital Overground route remains of interest, the impacts of the cross-river link to Abbey Wood should be assessed in more detail. Belvedere local options

9.13. The interim public transport options include a single rail-based scheme operating over the Belvedere crossing (Tram 3). This option links a number of significant development sites in the key riverside Opportunity Areas. The improvement in PTAL values at Dagenham Dock station, Beam Park and Yarnton Way open up opportunities for mixed use or medium-density residential development. 9.14. Tram option 3 delivers improved access to jobs in Belvedere, Beam Park and Barking Riverside, linking these employment sites to public transport interchanges at Abbey Wood and Barking. Labour market access would improve as a result to the point that some parts of Beam Park and the SIP would have access to >250k workers within 75 minutes generalised time.

9.15. The concept of transit schemes serving the London Riverside and Bexley Riverside Opportunity Areas is not new. Tram 3 provides improved connectivity to these areas, although many of the benefits are not linked to the cross-river link. Overall the case for Tram 3 would be stronger if there were greater certainty about the nature of development and the level of intensification expected at key sites in the immediate surroundings. It is therefore proposed that Tram 3 is not taken forward for further assessment for the time being. Gallions Reach strategic options

9.16. London Overground option 3 (LO 3) represents one possible solution for creating an outer London orbital rail service using a cross-river link between Barking Riverside and Thamesmead. However, the improvement in access to jobs is relatively small given the very high cost of this scheme. Similarly while there are increases observed around Crayford and Sidcup, the overall impact of the cross-river link on access to the labour market is limited. This is largely due to the low frequency of the proposed service (4 trains per hour), which is a result of the scheduling constraints on existing sections of the network. No further assessment of LO 3 is proposed at the moment. This option is intended as a comparator and would not be delivered as part of the East of Silvertown crossings. 9.17. Tram-train option 1 represents an equivalent concept to LO 3 but using tram-train technology. This option generates a similar increase in access to jobs around the stations served in southeast London, but it delivers a greater increase in access to jobs in Thamesmead and Barking where it can run as a tram at a higher frequency. Similarly, it generates a greater improvement in access to the labour market in Abbey Wood, Thamesmead and Barking since it can operate at a higher frequency on this section of the route. 9.18. Overall the connectivity analysis demonstrates that the tram-train concept would offer equivalent benefits to a heavy rail orbital scheme at a lower cost. However, the concept is subject to a number of technical and operational feasibility challenges and is therefore not taken forward to the short list of options. 9.19. The final strategic option involves an extension of the DLR to form an orbital link from Ilford to Bexleyheath. In the same way that DLR 3 represents a logical extension of DLR 1, DLR option 6 is an alignment that could develop incrementally from DLR 3. This option generates a very significant uplift in access to jobs and to the labour market along the length of the route. In contrast to the orbital Overground concept, it can operate at a high frequency and can offer direct links to stations on the existing DLR network. In terms of network resilience, this orbital alignment provides interchange with all of the major radial routes in the study area. 9.20. While DLR option 6 extends well beyond the scope of the East of Silvertown crossings, a further assessment of variable demand has been undertaken. The intention is to understand the longer term potential of a cross-river DLR to provide a strategic orbital public transport and the suitability of medium-capacity mode to fulfil this role.

Table 9.1 summarises the initial conclusions and the rationale for further analysis of some of the interim rail options. Table 9.1: Summary of initial conclusions Option Further Rationale assessment? DLR 1 performs well in terms of potential development impacts DLR 1 Yes and further assessment of potential demand to be undertaken Tram 1 No Rejected due to poor benefits in comparison to DLR options DLR 2 No No further assessment required since covered by DLR 3 Intended for comparison purposes only but taken forward for LO 2 Yes comparison of alternative Barking to Abbey Wood options DLR 3 Yes DLR 3 and Tram 2d perform well in terms of connectivity and are taken forward for comparison of alternative Barking to Tram 2d Yes Abbey Wood options Tram 3 No Rejected due to lack of certainty about developments served Intended for comparison purposes only and not taken forward LO 3 No for further assessment as part of the East of Silvertown project Rejected due to significant technical and operational feasibility TT 1 No challenges DLR 6 will not be shortlisted but further assessment of the DLR 6 Yes longer term suitability of DLR for a strategic orbital connection to be undertaken

Alternative DLR service pattern (DLR 1a)

9.21. DLR option 1a assumes the same infrastructure as DLR 1 but the service pattern is revised so that Beckton retains its 2031 Reference Case service pattern with direct links to Tower Gateway and Stratford International. Instead of diverting a Beckton branch, the extension to Thamesmead is added as an additional service operating from Canning Town. As a result it is possible to identify the net connectivity benefits of the Thamesmead extension. 9.22. Figure 9-1 shows the change in jobs accessible within 75 minutes generalised time. The benefits of improved access to jobs are spread across Thamesmead and all of the areas served by the Beckton DLR branch. Figure 9-1: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 1a vs Indicative bus)

9.23. The change in access to jobs for Beckton and Gallions Reach is summarised in Table 9.2. Table 9.2: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Indicative bus DLR 1 DLR 1a Case Beckton 340 343 336 372 Gallions Reach 632 680 632 752

9.24. Figure 9-2 shows the change in workers accessible within 75 minutes generalised time. The increase in frequency on the Beckton branch leads to significant benefits to businesses located on it. Notably the number of workers who can access the ABP development in 75 minutes generalised time increases from 785,000 to 843,000. Figure 9-2: Change in workers within 75 mins generalised time (DLR 1a vs Indicative bus)

9.25. The option DLR 1a test clearly demonstrates the positive connectivity impacts for Gallions Reach and the area surrounding the proposed Armada Junction station as a result of the cross-river link. In the absence of a frequency reduction to Beckton, the change in access to jobs and to the labour market is in the region of 50k. 9.26. DLR 1a involves a frequency increase on the Beckton branch between Canning Town and Gallions Reach station, resulting in significant additional connectivity benefits to the northern half of the Royal Docks.

Trips and mode share (variable demand matrices)

9.27. Table 9.1 sets out the rationale for conducting further LTS/Railplan tests with variable demand matrices for some options. It is possible to explore some of the wider questions that have been thrown up by the Railplan assignment tests:  Do the cross-river public transport links result in a change in the total volume and mode share of public transport trips?  Do the cross-river public transport links result in a change in the distribution of public transport trips? If yes, what is the change in the average trip distance and number of stages per trip?  What are the estimates of cross-river patronage in terms of the volume and mode share of public transport trips? 9.28. Table 9.3 shows the changes in forecast public transport trips under the tested scenarios. Common to all of these scenarios is an increase in the number and proportion of car trips as a result of the large increase in highway connectivity provided by two new river crossings, and a corresponding large decrease in active mode trips. 9.29. Public transport trips are forecast to decrease under the bus, DLR 1 and DLR 3 scenarios in the AM peak as a result of mode shift to car. In other time periods, a net increase in public transport trips is forecast under all scenarios. DLR 6 shows the largest increase in morning and evening peak public transport trips. LO 2 shows the largest increase in inter-peak public transport trips. Table 9.3: Change in public transport trips from 2031 ref case (LTS internal area) AM peak Inter-peak PM peak Option Change % Change % Change % Indicative bus -250 -0.01% 3,268 0.09% 629 0.02% DLR 1 -207 -0.01% 3,576 0.10% 758 0.03% DLR 3 -142 0.00% 2,669 0.08% 486 0.02% Tram 2d 185 0.01% 3,962 0.11% 1,119 0.04% LO 2 287 0.01% 5,940 0.17% 1,831 0.07% DLR 6 1,388 0.05% 5,483 0.16% 2,284 0.08%

9.30. The forecast change in overall public transport mode shares in the LTS model internal area is relatively small when expressed in percentage terms (

Table 9.4). Both car and public transport mode shares increase relative to active mode trips in all time periods.

Table 9.4: Public transport mode share (LTS internal area) Option AM peak Inter-peak PM peak 2031 Reference Case 40.42% 33.16% 43.01% Indicative bus 40.43% 33.19% 43.01% DLR 1 40.43% 33.19% 43.01% DLR 3 40.43% 33.19% 43.01% Tram 2d 40.43% 33.20% 43.02% LO 2 40.43% 33.22% 43.03% DLR 6 40.45% 33.21% 43.04%

9.31. Table 9.5 shows the changes in public transport demand expressed in total passenger-kilometres per time period. The increase in trips in the inter-peak period is mirrored by an increase in passenger-kilometres for all scenarios. In the morning peak periods, there is a reduction in passenger kilometres under all scenarios, which indicates that some passengers benefit from more direct journeys. In the evening peak, the proportional change in passenger kilometres is also less than the change in trips under all scenarios. Table 9.5: Change in public transport passenger-kilometres (GLA area only) AM peak Inter-peak PM peak Option Change % Change % Change % Indicative bus -27,800 -0.07% 36,600 0.09% -3,300 -0.01% DLR 1 -27,500 -0.07% 41,200 0.10% -1,300 0.00% DLR 3 -30,400 -0.07% 36,300 0.09% -11,100 -0.03% Tram 2d -25,300 -0.06% 40,400 0.10% -700 0.00% LO 2 -13,400 -0.03% 68,800 0.17% 21,700 0.06% DLR 6 -12,700 -0.03% 56,900 0.14% 6,500 0.02%

Trip distribution (variable demand matrices)

9.32. Understanding the trip re-distribution effects resulting from new river crossings is particularly important due to the way the river currently shapes travel patterns in east London. An analysis of London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) data covering the years between 2005 and 2011 was used to assess these patterns2. 9.33. For the purposes of this analysis, borough level data was used. The area covered by this analysis comprises the boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, City of London, Westminster and Tower Hamlets (located north of the Thames) and the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark (located south of the Thames)3. The analysis sought to understand the extent to which travel in these boroughs might be constrained by the presence of the river and the limited options available for travelling across the river. 9.34. The key findings were that:  Out of 5 million trips in the east London study area, only 6.4% were cross- river trips. The analysis of the west London study area showed that 10.8% of over 5 million trips were cross-river trips.  Excluding trips to/from central London, only 1% of the east London trips were cross-river trips, while in west London 7.9% were cross-river trips.  Looking specifically at public transport trips, there is a significant volume of cross-river trips on the Overground, DLR and Underground networks in east London. As a result, almost 20% of all public transport trips in east London are cross-river trips.  Excluding trips to/from central London (and the Isle of Dogs), the proportion of cross-river public transport trips drops to only 2%. 9.35. Analysis of the trip distribution effects has been undertaken on the LTS model outputs. The estimated pattern of trips in the 2031 reference case reflects the trip patterns observed in the LTDS data. 9.36. For example, Figure 9-3 shows the modelled number of morning peak public transport trips from Thamesmead in the 2031 Reference Case. The most common destinations are either local trips in Greenwich and Bexley, or trips to the major employment centres in the Isle of Dogs and central London. There are very few local trips to areas north of the river in Newham, Barking & Dagenham, and Havering.

2 East London River Crossings LTDS Analysis (2005-2011 data). 3 The comparative west London area of analysis comprises the boroughs of Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Tower Hamlets, Westminster, Ealing, Hounslow and the City of London (located north of the Thames) and the boroughs of Lambeth, Wandsworth, Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames (located south of the Thames). The definition of central London trips includes all trips with either an origin or destination (or both legs) in either the City of London, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster. 77

Figure 9-3: Number of morning peak public transport trips from Thamesmead (2031 Reference Case)

9.37. The re-distribution effect estimated under DLR option 3 results in the number of AM peak public transport trips from Thamesmead to Outer East London growing from around 50 to 200 trips, which represents a small shift in absolute terms. It should be noted that the re-distribution effect is predominantly to Barking town centre and does not consider the impact of new development and employment opportunities in the Lower Roding Valley. 9.38. New public transport links can reduce average trip distances by introducing shorter routes or increase trip distances as passengers choose to travel further as a result of enhanced connectivity. An analysis of forecast average public transport trip distances within the GLA area shows that there is virtually no forecast change under these public transport options. There is only a very minor reduction in average trip distance forecast under scenario DLR 3. This is in contrast to the highway model where a net increase in average trip distances is forecast across all scenarios.

Estimates of public transport demand (variable demand matrices)

9.39. The variable demand matrices derived from the additional LTS runs have been assigned in Railplan. The definitions of the demand matrices are as follows:  Fixed demand – all of the interim options were assigned with the original demand matrices from the Indicative Bus scenario from the Bexley Growth Strategy work.  Variable demand – several of the interim options have been run through LTS to determine the change in trip distribution and mode choice, and the derived matrices assigned in Railplan. Note that the Indicative Bus option demand matrices are slightly different to the original version due to several subsequent changes in public transport network coding.  Development impacts – while work has been carried out to determine the level of development that could be supported by some of the public transport options, it should be noted that none of the net uplift in development is included in the demand matrices. Further tests with development included are planned. 9.40. Table 9.6 compares the estimated AM peak cross-river patronage on the two crossings from the fixed and variable demand matrices for the Indicative Bus and DLR 1 options. The variable demand estimate is 10-15% higher than the fixed demand estimate in both cases. Since the mode shift effect is relatively low (as set out in Table 9.3), this predicted effect is predominantly due to the effect of trip re- distribution. The predicted cross-river patronage from Thamesmead on DLR 1 remains marginally lower than the cross-river bus trips from the wider bus catchment area. Table 9.6: Comparison of cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak, Indicative bus and DLR 1) Measure Indicative bus Indicative bus DLR 1 (fixed DLR 1 (variable (fixed demand) (variable demand) demand) demand) Cross-river bus 3,080 3,660 2,200 2,590 trips (GR) Cross-river bus 2,940 3,000 2,940 3,010 trips (Bel) Cross-river transit - - 1,860 2,300 trips (GR) Total cross-river trips (bus and 6,020 6,670 7,000 7,890 transit) 9.41. Table 9.7 compares the estimated AM peak cross-river patronage on the two crossings from the fixed and variable demand matrices for the DLR 3 and Tram 2d options. The variable demand estimate of cross-river demand is 10% higher than the fixed demand estimate for DLR 3.

9.42. The total patronage estimate for Tram 2d increases by around 10-15% from the fixed to variable demand matrices. It is noteworthy that, contrary to the other options, the introduction of the connection into Woolwich with Tram 2d actually draws some transit patronage away from the Gallions Reach river crossing due to the improved interchange with Crossrail at Woolwich Arsenal. Table 9.7: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak, DLR 3 and Tram 2d) Measure DLR 3 (fixed DLR 3 (variable Tram 2d (fixed Tram 2d demand) demand) demand) (variable demand) Cross-river bus 1,700 2,040 1,110 1,400 trips (GR) Cross-river bus 2,890 2,970 2,780 2,880 trips (Bel) Cross-river transit 3,060 3,460 3,210 3,120 trips (GR) Total cross-river trips (bus and 7,660 8,460 7,090 7,410 transit) 7,000 (Barking 7,700 (Barking >11,000 >12,500 to Royal Docks, to Royal Docks, (Barking to (Barking to Thamesmead to Thamesmead to Royal Docks, Royal Docks, Other patronage Abbey Wood, Abbey Wood, Thamesmead to Thamesmead to effects and frequency and frequency Woolwich and Woolwich and increase to increase to to Abbey to Abbey Canning Town) Canning Town) Wood) Wood) 9.43. Table 9.8 compares the estimated AM peak cross-river patronage on the two crossings from the fixed and variable demand matrices for the LO 2 and DLR 6 options. The variable demand estimate of cross-river demand is 14% higher than the fixed demand estimate for LO 2, with about 500 extra trips on Gallions Reach buses and 500 extra trips on the Overground extension as a result of the trip re-distribution effect. 9.44. DLR 6 represents a much more strategic orbital public transport intervention and consequently the variable demand estimate is 26% higher than the fixed demand estimate. This applies to both the cross-river re-distribution effect and the other patronage effects north and south of the river. 9.45. The re-distribution effect at the Belvedere crossing is relatively self-contained, and the variation remains small between the fixed and variable demand estimates, and between all of the different transit schemes at Gallions Reach.

Table 9.8: Estimated cross-river public transport trips (2031 AM peak, LO 2 and DLR 6) Measure LO 2 (fixed LO 2 (variable DLR 6 (fixed DLR 6 (variable demand) demand) demand) demand) Cross-river bus 2,510 3,060 1,560 2,000 trips (GR) Cross-river bus 2,790 2,850 2,760 2,790 trips (Bel) Cross-river transit 2,290 2,750 5,500 7,630 trips (GR/BR) Total cross-river trips (bus and 7,590 8,660 9,820 12,410 transit) Approx. 6,500 Approx. 8,200 (Ilford – Barking (Ilford – Barking – Royal Docks, – Royal Docks, Other patronage - - and and effects Thamesmead – Thamesmead – Abbey Wood – Abbey Wood – Bexleyheath) Bexleyheath)

Public transport crowding (variable demand matrices)

9.46. Analysis of the 2031 Reference Case Railplan model outputs highlights shows that bus links between Thamesmead and Woolwich are forecast to experience peak crowding. Figure 9-4 shows the ratio of forecast hourly flows to the available capacity. The links highlighted in yellow have a volume to capacity ratio exceeding 0.75:1 and the links in red exceeding 1:1. 9.47. When interpreting these forecasts, it should be considered that the bus network assumptions for 2031 do not include potential service changes to support the arrival of Crossrail. Yet they do provide a general indication of the corridors where bus crowding may be an issue, and whether new cross-river links could relieve this crowding.

Figure 9-4: Bus volume/capacity (2031 AM peak hour, ref case)

9.48. The introduction of the cross-river bus network is forecast to generate new patronage on the new route between Thamesmead and Woolwich, but not to have a significant impact on bus crowding on the existing routes (Figure 9-5). 9.49. With the introduction of DLR 1, it is forecast that some passengers will switch from routes through Woolwich to the new crossing. For example, the DLR will provide an alternative direct link to Crossrail at Custom House. This impact is not forecast to be sufficient to significantly reduce the potential for crowding on the bus corridor between Thamesmead and Woolwich (Figure 9-6). As shown in Figure 9-7, DLR option 3 will also relieve bus crowding to a slightly greater extent than DLR option 1. 9.50. Tram option 2d (Figure 9-8) will provide an alternative high-capacity link between Thamesmead and Woolwich, and is forecast to relieve the bus crowding on this corridor.

Figure 9-5: Bus volume/capacity (2031 AM peak hour, bus Indicative)

Figure 9-6: Bus volume/capacity (2031 AM peak hour, DLR 1)

Figure 9-7: Bus volume/capacity (2031 AM peak hour, DLR 3)

Figure 9-8: Bus volume/capacity (2031 AM peak hour, Tram 2d)

10. Conclusion

10.1. Transport for London is proposing a programme of river crossings that seeks to improve the ability of people and goods to cross the River Thames in London. Its focus is on the continued enhancement of the transport network, both in response to the enormous changes which have taken place in London over the last two to three decades, and as a means of supporting the significant further growth that is forecast. 10.2. The development and appraisal of options is an iterative process, and the initial appraisal of highway options was previously reported in the ‘Option Assessment Report (Long List)’ which outlined all the long list options considered, including highway, public transport and walking and cycling options. Due to the number of potential public transport options (approximately 30), it was necessary to reduce the number of options which have been taken forward for a more detailed to an interim list. 10.3. The role of this report is to set out the impacts of the alternative public transport infrastructure options and their relative strengths and weaknesses to feed into an ‘Option Assessment Report (Interim Public Transport List)’. 10.4. Buses would form the Do-Minimum public transport provision expected to be included with any proposed crossing package. All other fixed public transport options are assessed relative to this scenario. 10.5. Several of the public transport options can be ruled out of the short list at this stage, while further analysis has been undertaken to understand more about the remaining options. Table 10.1 summarises the main conclusions of the assessment of the Public Transport Interim List.

Table 10.1 Public Transport Interim List Option Shortlisted? Rationale DLR 1 performs well in terms of potential development DLR 1 Yes impacts and further assessment of potential demand to be undertaken

Tram 1 No Rejected due to poor benefits in comparison to DLR options

DLR 2 No No further assessment required since covered by DLR 3

Rejected due to poor performance compared other higher LO 2 No frequency Barking to Abbey Wood options

DLR 3 Yes DLR 3 and Tram 2d perform well in terms of connectivity and are taken forward for comparison of alternative Barking to Abbey Wood options Tram 2d Yes

Tram 3 No Rejected due to lack of certainty about developments served

Intended for comparison purposes only and not taken forward LO 3 No for further assessment as part of the East of Silvertown project

Rejected due to significant technical and operational feasibility TT 1 No challenges

DLR 6 demonstrates the potential for DLR as a strategic orbital DLR 6 No connection but is outside the scope of this project.

Appendix A East of Silvertown River Crossings: Public transport forecasting and appraisal assumptions

East of Silvertown River Crossings Transport for London

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Document No. | 1 19 August 2015

Public Transport Modelling Report Transport for London

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

East of Silvertown River Crossings

Project no: B1987501 Document title: Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions Document No.: Document No. Revision: 1 Date: 19 August 2015 Client name: Transport for London Client no: Client Reference Project manager: Kate Kenny Author: Hermann Maier File name: C:\Users\HMaier\Desktop\EoS\B1987501 EoS PT Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions 150728.docx

Jacobs Consultancy Ltd.

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

© Copyright 2015 Jacobs Consultancy Ltd. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

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

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Review Approved

1 06-05-15 1st Draft HM BD

2 28-07-15 2nd Draft HM

3 19-08-15 3rd Draft, responding to TfL comments HM

i Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 The modelling suite ...... 4 1.3 Structure of this report ...... 4 2. Railplan Methodology ...... 5 2.1 Background ...... 5 2.2 Overview of Railplan...... 5 2.3 Demand matrices ...... 5 2.4 Network representation ...... 5 2.5 Assignment ...... 6 2.6 Generalised time ...... 6 2.7 The crowding algorithm ...... 7 2.8 Model validation and forecasting ...... 7 2.9 The North Bexley Railplan model ...... 7 3. Forecasting assumptions for underlying demand growth ...... 9 3.1 Background ...... 9 3.2 Land use assumptions ...... 9 3.3 Economic assumptions ...... 9 4. Transport Supply Assumptions ...... 11 4.1 Highway Network ...... 11 4.2 Public Transport network ...... 12 4.3 East of Silvertown 2031 reference case ...... 14 5. Economic appraisal assumptions ...... 15 5.1 Background ...... 15 5.2 General assumptions ...... 15 5.3 Travel time savings...... 15 5.4 Values of time and purpose splits ...... 16 5.5 Annualisation factors ...... 17 5.6 Revenue forecasting ...... 17 5.7 Calculation of road decongestion benefits ...... 18 5.8 Calculation of accident benefits ...... 18 5.9 Calculation of road operating costs avoided ...... 18 5.10 Carbon ...... 19 5.11 Optimism bias ...... 19 5.12 Build-up of benefits and revenues ...... 20 5.13 Externalities ...... 20

Appendix A. LTS B7.0 Planning Data

ii Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Important note about your report

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs is to document the public transport modelling work undertaken for the East of Silvertown River Crossings project in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract between Jacobs and Transport for London (TfL). That scope of services, as described in this report, was developed with TfL.

In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by TfL and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and conclusions as expressed in this report may change.

Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from TfL (if any) and/or available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re- evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above, however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made as to the data, observations and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.

This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other context.

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

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

1. Introduction

1.1 Background This document sets out the assumptions and inputs used to forecast travel demand, travel patterns, benefits and revenues from the East of Silvertown (EoS) River Crossings Public Transport schemes as well as input assumptions for the business case appraisal for the projects. The note sets out the assumptions for:  Forecasting of the underlying demand;  Representation of the transport supply (network assumptions); and  Economic parameters, both as input to the demand modelling and as input to the business case appraisal. The specification of the schemes tested is provided in a separate forecasting report.

1.2 The modelling suite The available modelling resources for this work were:  Railplan version 7.0 providing the public transport assignment; and  LTS version B7.0, providing the demand inputs to Railplan.

LTS is the strategic demand model for London providing the overall growth in in travel demand between base and forecast year (on the basis of input land use and economic data), the origin-destination distribution and allocation of that demand to public transport and highway modes respectively. Demand patterns from LTS are then used for more detailed forecasting work in other TfL modelling tools. Of particular relevance here is the Railplan public transport assignment model.

1.3 Structure of this report Following this introduction, this report is structured as follows:  Section 2 gives a general introduction to Railplan modelling and introduces the North Bexley Railplan model which formed the starting point for our modelling;  Section 3 sets out the forecasting assumptions for the underlying demand growth;  Section 4 sets out the assumptions relating to networks in the absence of the schemes (the forecasting Reference Case); and  Section 5 outlines the economic appraisal assumptions.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

2. Railplan Methodology

2.1 Background

Much of the information in this chapter is taken from TfL’s Railplan documentation, in particular the Railplan Modelling User Guide, and some sections are reproduced verbatim from that document.

2.2 Overview of Railplan

The current version of Railplan used for this study is Railplan v7.0. Railplan is TfL’s public transport assignment model. The assignment represents the final stage in the traditional 4-stage modelling process consisting of:  Trip generation;  Mode split;  Trip distribution; and  Assignment.

The first three stages of the modelling process are undertaken in the London Transportation Studies Model (LTS), which is a large four-stage model of London. Railplan has a more detailed representation of the public transport network than LTS and the demand matrices generated by LTS are assigned in Railplan. Major changes that are likely to lead to significant shifts in the number, distribution or mode of trips need to be re-run through LTS or another demand model (such as LoRDM) in order to estimate these effects.

Geographically, Railplan covers London and the South East of England, with a skeletal representation for the rest of mainland Great Britain. The Railplan model operates for the AM peak (0700 to 1000), Interpeak (1000 to 1600) and PM peak (1600 to 1900) periods.

2.3 Demand matrices There are 4106 zones (3,590 within the GLA) in the current version of Railplan (v7.0). The vast majority of these zones represent geographical areas, but there are others which represent specific locations such as airports.

Each zone has a notional centre – a centroid. All trips to and from each zone in the model go to/from the centroid, which is generally the centre of activity in each zone, i.e. it represents all the possible start and end points in that geographical area (or zone).

The number of trips between zones depends on a number of factors, including the levels and types of population and employment by zone, the propensity to make trips, the time it takes to get between zones etc. The numbers of trips are determined by the generation and distribution elements of the LTS model, whilst the mode choice element (also within LTS) determines the main mode of these trips. The public transport sub-mode split is determined within the Railplan assignment module.

2.4 Network representation

Supply in the context of travel demand modelling is the transport system itself, and in Railplan it is the representation of the public transport system in London and the South East of England. This covers London Buses, the London Underground (LUL), National Rail, Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and Croydon Tramlink. There is also a representation of the walk network, covering major roads, streets, pedestrian access routes and stations throughout the network.

The network is built up of modes, nodes, links, vehicles and services. Nodes and links are the building blocks of the ‘physical’ network. They make up the road network (used by walk and bus modes), the tracks, the stations, the bus stops etc. in the model. A node is a point on the network – it can represent a road junction, a station platform (or group of platforms), a bus stop, station entrance etc. Links connect nodes and represent streets, roads, tracks, walk passages etc.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

There are specific types of link, called centroid connectors, which connect the centroids (where zonal demand comes from and goes to) to points on the network (i.e. bus stops, stations).

On top of the network hierarchy of nodes and links sit the public transport services, which are each defined by a mode and vehicle type. These are the train, bus, LUL and light rail services which travellers use to get around the network.

2.5 Assignment

Assignment is the process by which the trip matrix (demand) is ‘loaded’ onto the network (supply); in essence it is the process of people making their trips from A to B, represented in the model as trips from zone to zone via the services available in the network. The routes chosen between zones are driven by which routes are deemed attractive to the traveller. The level of attractiveness is determined by the cost of travel.

Railplan assigns trips between zones across a number of routes, i.e. people do not all take the same route between each two points. This ‘multi-routing’ adds realism to the assignment process. A complex set of mathematical rules dictate how assignment works, but it is the principle of equilibrium which drives the assignment process.

When the transport network is in equilibrium no traveller can change their route to find a lower cost route between their origin and destination. This travel cost takes into account all elements of cost including walking, waiting, travelling and crowding, and is termed generalised cost (or generalised time).

2.6 Generalised time

The basis for deciding which routes are taken (and also which modes are used etc.) is determined by generalised time, often referred to as either GT or GJT. Generalised time is that element of generalised cost which does not include the financial cost of a journey (e.g. the fare for public transport journeys), though both terms are often used interchangeably. GT is best thought of as perceived time; it takes into account that some elements of the public transport trips are perceived as being less acceptable than other elements, and are given weightings to represent this.

The formulation of generalised time in Railplan is as follows:

GT  IVT  2Walk  2.5Wait  BP

Where,

GT is generalised time

IVT is in vehicle time, the actual time spent on buses, trains etc. – taken from timetables, with an additional element to represent, where relevant, crowding (see below)

WALK is walk time, this covers all elements of walking within the whole trip, e.g. walking from zones, in stations, between bus stops etc.

WAIT is wait time, time spent at stations and stops waiting for services

BP is boarding penalty, an additional perceived cost of having to change services, above and beyond extra walking and waiting time

The boarding penalty represents people’s disinclination to board a vehicle (over and above the wait time) and is determined during the model calibration. In Railplan 7.0, the values are 3.50 mins for LUL and DLR, 7.00 mins for National Rail and 7.65 mins for buses. For modelling Crossrail, the usual convention is to adopt the LUL boarding penalty for the underground stations in central London but to retain a rail boarding penalty for all other stations.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

The walk and wait time weights of 2.0 and 2.5 respectively represent the higher perceived disutility of walking and waiting compared with in-vehicle time. The weights of 2.0 and 2.5 are given in WebTAG.

In Railplan there is an additional perceived time incurred due to crowding and congestion on trains. This is added to in-vehicle time and covers the additional discomfort of having to travel on crowded services.

2.7 The crowding algorithm

Crowding on London’s public transport system is a significant and increasing problem, covering operational, comfort and safety issues. Modelling crowding improves the validation of the Railplan model and allows for quantification of the congestion relief benefits.

The crowding penalty takes the form of a weight applied to in-vehicle travel times varying from no crowding to maximum crush capacity. Crowding penalties are applied on individual links at the level of individual services. The penalties are calculated from the relationship between demand on a link and the available seated and standing capacity and the crowding curves that inform that calculation are based on a combination of revealed preference observations and stated preference surveys.

Rail passenger congestion is not just an on-train problem. Other aspects include platform and in-station crowding, excess waiting times through not being able to board services and service irregularities due to heavily loaded trains bunching together. These other aspects are not included in the Railplan crowding algorithm.

The level of crowding itself is an average for the peak period, and therefore needs to take account of different levels of demand and supply throughout the three hour period. To this end, demand and supply profiles are used in the crowding calculations, reflecting the fact that demand is more peaked than supply.

2.8 Model validation and forecasting

Railplan v7.0 is validated for a base year of 2011. A detailed validation report is available1. No further validation work focussed on the East of Silvertown area was undertaken as part of this study.

Once the base year model is validated, forecast year models are developed. Here inputs are estimated for a ‘Reference Case’ scenario for the forecast year. This is generally taken to be the ‘most likely’ scenario based on committed schemes and central assumptions on land use development and other economic parameters.

Planning assumptions (from the London Plan) are input into LTS along with the assumed future year amendments to the network. Calculated assumptions are made with respect to other parameters, such as growth in fares and other monetary values and a central forecast year model (Reference Case) is run in LTS. The demand matrices are then passed to Railplan.

Most applications of Railplan start with a standard TfL Reference Case. However, in the case of the East of Silvertown project, some work had already been undertaken as part of the North Bexley project which provided useful input.

2.9 The North Bexley Railplan model

The starting point for most of this work was the North Bexley Railplan model developed by URS on behalf of TfL2. This contains a number of local refinements in the area of interest to the EoS study, and provides readily available coding for a network of river crossing bus routes that formed the “do minimum” for our models. It also includes trip matrices from LTS that takes account of that bus network, giving an initial proxy for the mode shift and trip distribution effect of providing additional public transport river crossing opportunities.

1 TfL Planning – Strategic Analysis, Railplan 7.0 Validation Report, DRAFT, April 2015 2 As part of the study, some comparative model runs were also undertaken using the Do-Minimum definition from the Silvertown Crossing project. This uses standard Railplan zoning and a do-minimum scenario with enhanced bus services across the river using the Silvertown Crossing.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

The URS work is documented in a Base Year Modelling Report3 and a Reference Case Modelling Report4. A high level summary of that work is reproduced below.

A review of the model in the study area concentrated on the following issues:  Local zoning system;  On-street network representation;  Coding of local NR stations; and  Provision of PT services in the study area.

The analysis demonstrated that the zoning system in the study area was logical. There were, however, a few zones which stretched on both sides of the Southeastern track, specifically around Belvedere and Slade Green stations and this was addressed in the local model disaggregation.

The analysis of the on-street network showed generally a sufficient level of coverage of the local network. The review of the coding of the local NR stations identified a series of issues which were addressed. These related to the length of the walk links inside the stations and from the station entrances to the external network.

The analysis of the coding of the Southeastern service provision at local stations demonstrated some discrepancies compared with the timetable. This related to the Cannon Street-to-Cannon Street services operating in the Crayford loop, which was corrected in agreement with TfL. The audit revealed no discrepancy between the code and the timetabled information of the DLR services. The review of the bus definition revealed a series of small local discrepancies between the code and the actual route whose coding was corrected.

The process of the local model disaggregation covered the network coding and the zone system. TfL provided GIS information on the layout of the new zones, informed by the pattern of anticipated land use development in the study area. URS used this data together with the Code-Point5 database to split existing Railplan zones to a finer level. This followed the standard TfL methodology used when Railplan trip matrices are disaggregated to a finer zonal level.

The calibration and validation of the demand matrix included analysis of the values of the link flows on the links included in the cordon surrounding the study area. The analysis compared the modelled flows with the observed values. To address local validation issues, URS used a select link approach. This included running a series of select link analysis on the links not meeting the validation criteria. The matrices extracted in this process were subsequently factored to the observed levels and replaced within the full matrix.

For the 2031 forecast year, the model audit found few changes from the base year, the most notable being a change in location of the station entrance to Abbey Wood. The base year audit modifications were thus also applied to the 2031 AM Reference Case. The public transport audit found most of the services were correctly coded in the model. For bus routes, the same modifications to routing as in the base were applied.

3 Highway & PT Modelling – Bexley Opportunity Area Planning Framework, Base Year Modelling Report, URS, September 2014 4 Highway & PT Modelling – Bexley Opportunity Area Planning Framework AM 2031 Reference Case Modelling Report, URS, September 2014 5 Code-Point is an Ordnance Survey database that provides a precise geographical location for 1.6 million postcode units in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Each Code-Point contains an average of 15 adjoining addresses.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

3. Forecasting assumptions for underlying demand growth

3.1 Background

This section sets out the assumptions that determine travel demand. The assumptions fall in to three categories: underlying travel demand, travel costs, and transport supply. Determinants of future travel demand include forecasts of:  population, households and employment; and  economic growth and of changes in the costs of travel.

In addition, the demand model requires assumptions for transport supply which are outlined in the subsequent chapter:  highway network assumptions; and  public transport network assumptions.

3.2 Land use assumptions

A high level summary of land use assumptions in LTS B7.0 is given in Table 3.1, split by the number of households, population, workers and jobs. This indicates a population growth in the GLA area of 26% and a growth in jobs of 21% between 2011 and 2041. Further disaggregation of these categories and more details on the underlying data by geographical disaggregation are provided in Systra TN43, which is reproduced in appendix A.

Table 3.1 : LTS B7.0 Land use summary

3.3 Economic assumptions

In addition to land use assumptions, LTS uses economic parameters as input for the demand forecasting. This includes parameters such as the growth in GDP, value of time, fares and vehicle operating costs.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

The February 2013 version of WebTAG Unit 3.5.6 was used as the basis for all LTS B7.0 economic assumptions. This TAG unit provides the latest values of time, GDP growth rates, occupancy figures, purpose split, and vehicle operating costs recommended by the DfT for use in economic appraisals of transport projects.

All economic parameters in the LTS B7.0 base year (2011) model are represented by 2011 values in 2011 prices.

LTS requires VoTs to enable conversion between monetary costs and time costs, for different groups of users (e.g. working, non-working). This relationship is used in calculating generalised costs that incorporate both monetary and time elements.

According to the guidance, the following growth by 2031 is expected for the key LTS economic assumptions (indexed, 2011 = 100):  GDP per head: 142;  Value of time: 142 for working, 132 for non-working;  Value of time for goods vehicles: 141 for LGV, 142 for OGV;  Fuel price for car: petrol – 117, diesel – 119, electric – 149;  Fuel price for goods vehicles: LGV – 120, OGV – 119;  Vehicle efficiency of a car in 2031 compared to 2011(the lower, the more efficient): petrol – 58, diesel – 66, electric – 89; and  Vehicle efficiency of a car in 2031 compared to 2011(the lower, the more efficient): LGV petrol – 68, LGV diesel – 69, OGV – 100.

Calculation of an average fuel cost for car travel requires assumptions about the proportion of cars in the car fleet stock that are petrol and diesel and how that composition varies over time. WebTAG proportions were assumed in LTS and in 2031 are:  Cars: petrol – 44.46, diesel – 50.23, electric – 5.31; and  LGV: petrol – 0.79, diesel – 93.90, electric – 5.31.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

4. Transport Supply Assumptions

4.1 Highway Network

Building on the 2011 base year network, coding for the 2031 forecast year includes a range of committed and likely schemes for, highways as listed in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 : Highway schemes included in LTS B7.0 coding for 2031 A3 Hindhead Improvement Tottenham Hale Gyratory Dartford Toll Plaza Removal M25 Widening to Dual 4 J29-30 A205 Brownhill Rd / St Mildreds Rd Torridon rd to Helder Grove A24 Balham High Road Northbound bus lane A24 Balham High Road/ Tooting Bec Road A41 Cricklewood Lane / Hendon Way - right Turning ASLs at junction A10 High Road, Broad Lane, West Green Road NEW/H/5/005 Modifications to Traffic Movements at the Junction of the A1020 and Jenkins Lane Old Oak Common Lane / A40 Westway Route 38 - Bloomsbury Way Strand outside Courts of Justice A4 Sutton Court Road Acton Town Centre Enhancement Scheme Cycle Superhighways Route 5 - Kennington Lane / Durham Road Scheme Fulham Palace Rd / Talgarth Rd slip road (Route 220, Phase 2) Greenwich Reach Greenwich Town Centre Pedestrianisation Scheme Lea Bridge Road Regeneration Scheme (Formal Sub) Portman Square-Phase 2 Southall Broadway Boulevard Stonecutter Street Closure - Road Danger Reduction Scheme Strand-Aldwych-Lancaster Place Bloomsbury Way (bus priority) Bounds Green environmental and safety schemes (A406) Brent cross at North Circular junction with A5, M1, A41 Hendon way, as well as further local improvements Elephant and Castle Euston Circus Exhibition Rd Henley Corner environmental and safety schemes (A406) Kender Street and Besson Street A2/A202 Kender Street Triangle Piccadilly 2-way Russell Square Sydenham Road Area Based Scheme A212 Tottenham Hale gyratory (made two-way) Wimbledon Town Centre (Destination Wimbledon)

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

4.2 Public Transport network

Building on the 2011 base year network, coding for the 2031 forecast year includes a range of committed and likely schemes for underground, DLR, Tram, bus and rail as outlined in Table 4.2 to Table 4.4.

These assumptions are consistent between both the Railplan reference cases and the LTS B7.0 model runs that provided the demand matrices.

Table 4.2 : Underground schemes included in Railplan 7 coding for 2031 Sub Surface Phase 1 - New Stock Metropolitan Croxley Link Northern PPP Upgrade - phase 1 (signalling upgrades) Victoria 36tph Sub Surface Phase 2 - Full upgrade Northern PPP Upgrade - phase 2 (revised service patterns) Northern Northern Line Extension to Battersea Bakerloo 27tph Piccadilly 33tph Central Line 33tph Jubilee Line 36 tph Jubilee line Various Station upgrade (e.g. Bank, TCR, Victoria etc) W&C Line EVO stock (as Central Line but 4 car); WTT 6 (15 Sep 2013)

Table 4.3 : DLR, Tram and Bus schemes included in Railplan 7 coding for 2031 DLR Poplar - Stratford 3 car upgrade DLR IP Service Enhancement DLR North Route Double Tracking Phase 1 (Base Service Plan B) Tram Therapia Lane 2012 Tram Wimbledon higher frequency Bus Capacity redistributed Bus ELT

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Table 4.4 : Rail schemes included in Railplan 7 coding for 2031 Chiltern Chiltern Evergreen 3 Phase 1 Chiltern Chiltern Evergreen 3 Phase 2 West Anglia HLOS1 - West Anglia Services Soth Western HLOS1 - South West Trains Services South Central HLOS1 - London Bridge South Central HLOS1 - Victoria West Coast London Midland Project 110 (Full) Thameslink Thameslink KO1.1 - Through Services West Coast West Coast Pendolino Lengthening (35x11car, 21x9car) West Anglia New Lea Bridge Station Overground Extend all class 378's to 5 car London Overground SLC3 - East London Line Phase 2b to Overground Clapham Jn Crossrail 1 Crossrail 1 (Abbey Wood / Shenfield - Heathrow / Maidenhead) South Eastern Thameslink KO2 - Blackfriars Services South Eastern Thameslink KO2 - Cannon St Services South Eastern Thameslink KO2 - Charing Cross Services East Coast Thameslink KO2 - GN Moorgate Suburban Services East Coast Thameslink KO2 - GN Kings Cross Suburban Services South Central Thameslink KO2 - London Bridge Services Thameslink Thameslink KO2 - Through Services South Eastern Thameslink KO2 - Victoria (SE) Services South Central Thameslink KO2 - Victoria (South Central) Services Great Western Paddington GWML Suburban Electrification Great Western Paddington GWML Long Distance Electrification HLOS2 - East West Rail (Aylesbury - Milton Keynes, Oxford - NR Bedford) Orbitals HLOS2 - West London Line West Anglia HLOS2 - Lea Valley mainline Great Eastern HLOS2 - Main Line Essex Thameside HLOS2 - Whole TOC South Eastern HLOS2 - Whole TOC South Central HLOS2 - Sydenham route South Central HLOS2 - Brighton main line (BML) South Western HLOS2 - Main Line South Western HLOS2 - Main suburban South Western HLOS2 - Windsor Lines Great Western HLOS2 - Main Line Chiltern HLOS2 - Main Line and Aylesbury route West Coast HLOS2 - London Midland East Midlands HLOS2 - Main Line East Coast / Great HLOS2 - Main Line and Hertford Loop Northern West Anglia West Anglia Upgrade Overground Gospel Oak - Barking Electrification and longer (4 car) trains

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Overground London Overground Speed Adjustment (Watford DC - Bakerloo)

4.3 East of Silvertown 2031 reference case

The East of Silvertown project interacts closely with the Silvertown Tunnel project and the Bexley Growth Strategy study. All three workstreams were undertaken with overlaps in the work programme and there was no opportunity to ensure complete consistency in the assumptions between the projects.

A high level summary of the differences between the different cases for the three projects is given in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 : Reference and core case definitions Silvertown East of Bexley Growth Tunnel Silvertown Strategy study Disaggregated in Disaggregated in Standard 4,106 North Bexley with net North Bexley with net Railplan zoning zones addition of 35 zones to addition of 35 zones to 4,141 4,141 Included in all Barking Riverside Extension Not included Not included scenarios Silvertown Tunnel (Blackwall and Core case Reference Case Reference Case Silvertown Tunnels charged)

Do-Min Blackwall-Silvertown bus Superseded Reference Case Reference Case package

Enhanced Blackwall-Silvertown bus To be adopted in next Core case Not included package version of core case

East of Silvertown crossings Not included Core case Do-Minimum

Do-Min Gallions-Belvedere bus Not included Core case Do-Minimum package Minor updates in the Minor updates in the Other Network coding n/a North Bexley Area and North Bexley Area to DLR service pattern

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

5. Economic appraisal assumptions

5.1 Background

The economic appraisal was undertaken using a bespoke and transparent spreadsheet approach rather than TUBA software. The available spreadsheet tool has been developed for the recent refresh of the Crossrail business case and has been reviewed by the DfT for consistency with its appraisal requirements.

The assumptions used for appraisal are consistent with WebTAG (November 2014) and TfL’s Business Case Development Manual (BCDM). Where required, WebTAG data has been supplemented by information from ONS, OBR and the Department for Transport.

The economic assumptions used for appraisal may not be completely consistent with the economic assumptions that fed into the demand model. However, we believe it is more important that the appraisal assumptions are up-to-date.

5.2 General assumptions

For consistency with current WebTAG guidance, the base year for appraisal is 2010. All costs and revenues were adjusted to 2010 prices and discounted to 2010.

We assumed a scheme opening year of 2026. Ideally, the demand modelling would be undertaken for that forecast year and 15 years later. In practice, what was available to us is a 2031 scenario. We used available trip matrix information from Railplan to extrapolate from the single 2031 point downwards to 2026 and upwards to 2041. After 2041, journey time benefits were assumed to remain constant, though their monetary value continues to grow in line with Value of Time growth.

The appraisal period is from the first year when costs are incurred until 60 years after scheme opening.

The discount rate is 3.5% for the first 30 years from present day (2015) and 3.0% thereafter, based on advice in the Revised Treasury Green Book (WebTAG table A1.1.1).

5.3 Travel time savings

The travel time savings were calculated from generalised cost and demand matrices within EMME using a standard variable trip matrix ‘rule of half’ formula as specified in WebTAG unit A1.3:

B  ½  (T0 + T1 )  (C 0 - C1 )

Where,

B = benefit in minutes

T0 = number of trips in the do-minimum

T1 = number of trips in the do something

C0 = Cost (in minutes) in the do minimum

C1 = Cost (in minutes) in the do something

The calculation is undertaken at the individual matrix cell level.

The benefits in minutes are converted to monetary values using the values and times and purpose splits described in below. This is undertaken within the appraisal spreadsheet as opposed to the EMME model.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

5.4 Values of time and purpose splits

Although WebTAG allows appraisals to be run in either the Factor Price or the Market Price unit of account, standard DfT expectation is the use of Market Price. That means that all costs need to be converted to Market Price and values of time should be expressed in Market Price.

Values of Time and their growth rates were taken from WebTAG databook A1.3.2 Nov 2014 and sample values for 2010, 2021 and 2031 are given below.

Of note are the differing values of in-work time by mode. No light rail values are given; it is conventional to assume the same value as for Underground.

In addition to the use of standard, national, values of time, TfL usually appraises schemes using London- specific values of time, which are factored by 39% based on TfL analysis of 2009 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, Table 9.7a and our appraisal shows results on the basis of both sets of values.

Table 5.1 : Appraisal Values of Time Values of Time, Market Price, 2010 values and prices VOT IVT Rail, work (£/hr) £31.96 VOT IVT Underground, work (£/hr) £26.28 VOT IVT Bus, work (£/hr) £16.63 VOT IVT commuting (£/hr) £6.81 VOT IVT other (£/hr) £6.04 Values of Time, Market Price, 2021 values and 2010 prices VOT IVT work (£/hr) £37.88 VOT IVT Underground, work (£/hr) £31.14 VOT IVT Bus, work (£/hr) £19.71 VOT IVT commuting (£/hr) £8.07 VOT IVT other (£/hr) £7.16 Values of Time, Market Price, 2031 values and 2010 prices VOT IVT work (£/hr) £45.93 VOT IVT Underground, work (£/hr) £37.76 VOT IVT Bus, work (£/hr) £23.89 VOT IVT commuting (£/hr) £9.79 VOT IVT other (£/hr) £8.69

The Railplan assignment does not distinguish between user classes or journey purposes because it does not contain any monetary components of generalised cost. For appraisal purposes, and to apply the above values of time, journey purpose splits are overlaid on the results from Railplan.

The appraisal spreadsheet is currently set up to use purpose splits by time period. As the current appraisal is based on peak results only from which we extrapolate to the whole year, we used all-week values from WebTAG databook A1.3.4 Nov 2014 for trips (as opposed to distance travelled).

The current appraisal applied the WebTAG Light Rail values to all scheme appraisals as indicated in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 : Journey Purpose Splits, all week

Light Rail Work 2.2% Commuting 43.8% Other 54.0%

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

There is an opportunity to refine these assumptions and make use of some more TfL-specific values when the appraisal is updated with PM peak modelling results.

5.5 Annualisation factors

The initial appraisal used an indicative value of 1,000 to annualise from AM peak model results to annual. This will be replaced by a more detailed calculation of annualisation factors from both AM peak and PM peak periods to annual, based on the RODS database.

5.6 Revenue forecasting Although ticket type splits in London are changing rapidly with the use of Oyster and contactless payment, traditionally the use of Travelcard was dominant and passenger kms are used as the metric for revenue allocation from the Travelcard receipts. We therefore feel that yield per passenger km is currently the most appropriate way of forecasting revenue. TfL 2013 analysis, factored to 2010 prices and values, suggests the following values:

Table 5.3 : Average Revenue Yield

Average Yield (£/pax km), Crossrail, 2010 prices £0.156 Average Yield (£/pax km), bus, 2010 prices £0.157 Average Yield (£/pax km), other rail, 2010 prices £0.133 Average Yield (£/pax km), other LUL, 2010 prices £0.185 Average Yield (£/pax km), other DLR, 2010 prices £0.216

In addition, TfL analysis suggests that there will be secondary revenue of up to 4% for rail schemes, generated by new advertising opportunities and the lease of retail outlets at stations.

Revenue forecasts were than adjusted for forecast years as follows, based on DfT advice:

Revenue forecasting and RPI/GDP deflator

Following DfT advice, the growth in revenue over time was forecast as follows.

1. Nominal revenue forecasts were expressed in terms of RPI inflation and these were deflated to real revenue forecasts using the GDP deflator.

2. Forecast revenue was based on a fares policy of RPI+1 (with the exception of 2014 where the policy is RPI+0).

3. The nominal RPI inflated revenue forecast was deflated to real 2010 prices using the GDP deflator.

4. For RPI inflation and GDP deflators the most recent published Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) assumptions were used:

 http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/wordpress/docs/March_2014_EFO_Charts_and_Tables.xls, Table 4.1 for short term series to In 2018/19.

 http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/pubs/Fiscal-sustainability-report-supplementary-tables-July-2013.xls, Table 2.1 for longer term series post 2019/20.

5. In applying the OBR RPI inflation and GDP deflator figures indices were used. For example in a particular year, to uplift a real revenue forecast by 3% RPI you would multiply by a factor of 1.03.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Adjustments to GDP growth rates

The OBR real GDP forecasts used a GDP deflator which is based on the CPI methodology. However, the PDFH elasticities were estimated using real GDP growth rates which were based on a different GDP deflator methodology (more akin to the RPI methodology).

The OBR has estimated that the new deflator increases real GDP growth by approximately 0.2% per annum; we have therefore reduced the real GDP growth forecasts by 0.2% per annum to ensure the growth rates are consistent with the elasticities that are applied to them.

User charge disbenefit

In current TfL appraisal practice, demand changes from one model that includes fares (LTS) are applied in another that does not (Railplan). If fares were included in Generalised Journey Time (GJT) underlying the benefits calculation, the issue would not arise. However, fares are only included in the LTS GJT, informing the mode choice decision but not in Railplan where the assignment takes place and the Railplan GJT that is used in the benefits calculation does not include fares..

As we are calculating additional revenues from new-to-public transport users and are counting these as a benefit, the question arises whether there should be a corresponding user charge disbenefit, calculated using the rule of half. Such a disbenefit is not normally counted in TfL appraisal.

Unlike time benefits which arise from a change in time and quantum of trips, the revenue does not arise from a change in fares – only a change in quantum of trips. So a fare difference is not the driver of change in behaviour. In addition, the mode choice decision is made on the basis of GJT (from LTS) that does include fares.

Discussions on this issue with DfT in the context of Crossrail have resulted in the advice that the user charge disbenefit should be omitted from the appraisal.

5.7 Calculation of road decongestion benefits

Decongestion benefits were calculated from the forecast reduction in car passenger km (calculated from the LTS mode shift effect), and the proportion of roads which are congested.

The proportion of the road network which congested varies by road type and by region. For this appraisal values have been taken from WebTAG databook A5.4.2. Marginal external costs (in pence per km) have been taken from WebTAG databook A5.4.1. This allowed a total road decongestion benefit to be calculated.

5.8 Calculation of accident benefits

Accident benefits were calculated from the change in demand by mode (between road and rail). The decrease in car passenger km was inferred from the increase in rail passenger kilometres from Railplan output.

The value of road and rail casualty prevention was taken from WebTAG databook A4.1.4, and fatality and injury rates (per billion passenger km) were taken from the DfT 2013 annual report of reported road casualties in Great Britain6.

5.9 Calculation of road operating costs avoided

In order to calculate changes in road operating costs, the reduction in car vehicle km was calculated from Railplan and average road speed was taken from TfL’s 12 hour London speed survey. Purpose splits were taken from WebTAG databook A1.3.4.

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2013

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Fuel cost parameters were taken from WebTAG databook A1.3.12 and fuel costs were then calculated as follows:

L  a / v  b  c  v  d  v 2

Where,

L is the cost (in pence per km)

v is the average speed in km/h

a, b, c and d are parameters (given in pence) from WebTAG (by vehicle category).

For non-work trips VAT is added.

Non-Fuel cost parameters were taken from WebTAG databook A1.3.15, and are given in pence/km and pence/hr. Non-Fuel costs are then given by:

C  a1  b1 / v

Where,

C is the cost (in pence per km)

a1 is the speed related parameter

b1 is the vehicle capital saving (relevant only to in-work vehicles).

A value per PCU-KM was calculated for each journey purpose. The total value was then calculated from the PCU-KM removed.

5.10 Carbon

The calculation of carbon savings was based on the fuel and non-fuel parameters from the operating cost calculations above. Greenhouse gas parameters were taken from WebTAG data book A3.3 (given in kg of carbon dioxide per litre of fuel combusted). The non-traded carbon value (in £/tonne CO2) was taken for WebTAG databook A3.4 to give greenhouse gas emission benefits.

5.11 Optimism bias

The concept of Optimism Bias was introduced in public sector appraisal following a review by Mott MacDonald on behalf of HM Treasury in 2002. Current guidance suggests the inclusion of a mitigation factor for capital and operating costs. This factor will vary depending on the stage (or “Level”) of a project within the project development life cycle.

Recommended values for Rail Projects are given in Table 3 of TAG unit A5.3 .3 on Rail Appraisal (November 2014), reproduced as Table 5.4 below.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Table 5.4 : Recommended risk and optimism bias adjustments from WebTAG

Based on this and the current level of maturity of the project, we used a 66% uplift for all capital costs.

For operating costs, an uplift of 10% was used for all rail-based schemes. For bus-based projects an uplift of 0% was used, given the relative certainty of bus costs from actual tender information.

5.12 Build-up of benefits and revenues

The TfL Business Case Development Manual suggests that a build-up factor should be included that factors down model results for the early years after scheme opening. This is to allow for the behavioural change predicted by the model to be built up gradually over time. The factors are:  35% in year 1  75% in year 2  90% in year 3  100% in year 4.

The factors were applied to both benefits and revenues.

5.13 Externalities

In addition to the explicit calculation of road decongestion, accident savings, carbon benefits and highway operating costs as outlined above, there are a number of other externalities which were calculated using values and parameters specified in WebTAG, mostly in databook tables A5.4.1 and A5.4.2 (Nov 2014). These include:  Indirect tax calculations;  Fuel cost assumptions;  Non-Fuel Cost Parameters;  Car Fuel Duty Rates; and  Fuel Consumption Parameters.

Forecasting and Appraisal Assumptions

Appendix A. LTS B7.0 Planning Data

Transport for London

TN43

LTS 2011 Rebase: Planning Data

LTS Technical Note 43

Prepared by SYSTRA for

Transport for London

July 2014

Transport for London

Contents

Chapter Page

1 Note Overview 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Purpose of this note 1 1.3 Structure of this note 2

2 LTS B7.0 Planning Data 3

2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 Internal Base Household Split 4 2.3 Household Income Parameters 5 2.4 Internal 2011 Car Ownership Proportions at Zonal Level 6 2.5 Internal Base Household Car Ownership Split 6 2.6 Internal Base Detailed Population Data 7 2.7 External Base Planning Data 8

3 Future Year Planning Data 9

3.1 Introduction 9 3.2 Summary Data Fields required for Internal Zones 10 3.3 White/Blue split for workers and jobs 10 3.4 Economically active students 11 3.5 Checks and adjustments 11 3.6 Summary of B7.0 Internal Planning Data 12 3.7 B7.0 Attraction Planning Data 17 3.8 B7.0 External Planning Data 21 3.9 Summary of Overall Planning Data Totals 21

Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data 22

Census Key Statistics Tables 22 London Travel Demand Survey database (LTDS) 24 Data fields required by PCOTE 24 Household Split 24 Car Ownership Proportions 25 Household Split and Car Ownership Cross Tabulation (hhcobase) 26 Detailed Population Data 26 External Planning Data 27

Document Control

Project Title: LTS Rebase

Project Number: C101470

Document Type : Technical Note

WP Reference:

Directory & File Name: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\Reports\TN43 Planning Data\TN43 - LTS B7 Planning Data v3.doc

Document Approval

Primary Author(s): Han Peng Lee

Other Author(s):

Reviewer(s): Jenny Taylor, Neil Raha

Issue Date Distribution Comments

1 12/05/2014 Jenny Taylor First internal draft

2 23/05/2014 Neil Raha Second internal draft

3 07/07/2014 David Christie First client draft

Tej Hunjan

1 Note Overview

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The LTS model is a strategic multi-modal transport model of London owned by Transport for London (TfL).

1.1.2 In the terminology used by LTS, B7.x is the general identifier for the LTS model with developments to take on board 2011 data.

1.1.3 The model uses 2011 as its base year, and forecasts travel movements for a series of forecast years in order to inform policy decisions. In the initial stage of the modelling, the numbers of trips made by purpose across the study area are estimated.

1.2 Purpose of this note

1.2.1 The LTS model uses planning data inputs to produce trip ends for each home-based trip purpose. The trip ends determine the trips made by the residents of each zone (the trip productions, ie the level of demand for transport) and provide an estimate of the number of trips attracted to each zone (the trip attractions, eg for journey-to-work purposes, the number of trips made to places of employment in each zone).

1.2.2 The trip productions in the internal area are modelled by applying a set of trip production rates to a detailed file of population data, in which the population in each zone is segmented by:

 household type (based on the number of working age and pensionable age adults resident in the household);

 car ownership category of household; and

 person type (age category, and employment type where appropriate).

1.2.3 Forecasts of population at this level of detail are not generally available. Therefore, LTS takes:

 a summary file of planning data, in the main categories only, for the forecast year (eg total households, total population) – the future year summary data for the internal area; and

 apportions these using proportions implicit inside a ‘template’, which contains a pre-existing detailed set of planning data.

1.2.4 For the current set of forecasts, mid-year estimates are used as the summary data for each forecast year, including consistent mid-year estimates for 2011. For all forecast years, a common template of detailed data has been used; this template was constructed using 2011 Census data and 2008-2011 LTDS data, with some furnessing where necessary.

1.2.5 The internal trip attractions use a simpler model, based on employment, households, school enrolment and retail floorspace data. This gives an initial estimate of the internal attractions, but is updated in other component

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 1 Note Overview

sub-models of the LTS model according to the number and location of trip productions, and transport costs for the singly-constrained home-based purposes (ie home-base other and employer’s business).

1.2.6 In the LTS trip end model, the only trip productions and attractions generated for the external area are:

 the external trip productions attracted to internal attractions; and

 the external trip attractions that attract internal productions.

1.2.7 Only five fields of planning data are used for each external zone, and the external trip end generations are produced by applying standard growth assumptions to the trip end generations for the base year.

1.2.8 This report describes the construction of the planning data inputs for the LTS B7.0 series of Trip End Forecasts. These are used, together with trip rates, in the PCOTE (Pshell Car Ownership and Trip End) model.

1.3 Structure of this note

1.3.1 Chapter 2 gives details of the sources and the construction of all the 2011 base planning data used for the B7.0 forecasts, including:

 the base detailed internal household and population data. This is based on Census data, not adjusted to mid-year estimates (MYE), at zonal level;

 the base year internal car ownership proportions, at borough level; and

 the base year external planning data, at zonal level, which is based on Census data and adjusted so that the total population in the South East and Great Britain matches mid-year estimates (MYE).

1.3.2 Chapter 3 gives details of the input data for the B7.0 set of forecasts:

 the internal summary planning data file for each forecast year (including the base year 2011), which was constructed from mid-year estimates supplied by Peter Brett Associates (PBA); and

 the external planning data for each forecast year, which consists of 2011 data growthed to the appropriate levels for future years using TEMPRO data version 6.2.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 2

2 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This chapter gives details of the construction of all the base year planning data for the B7.0 forecasts. This includes:

 the template of detailed internal data, consisting of:

 households categorised by household composition type (1oap/moap/1ade/mase1) and with various other additional household categories required for the car ownership model, at zonal level;

 households categorised by household car ownership type (ie by household composition type and car ownership type), at zonal level;

 population categorised by household car ownership type and person type, at zonal level; and

 base car ownership proportions, at London borough level;

 the external base data, consisting of mid-year estimates of five planning data categories for each external zone.

2.1.2 Different trip end models are used for the internal and external areas. As such, the detailed internal base data and external base data have separate uses:

 proportions from the detailed internal base data are used to segment the summary internal planning data; and

 the external base data is used in the calculation of growth factors between the base year and the future year. These growth factors are applied to the base year external trip ends.

2.1.3 These different uses of the internal and external base data have different implications on the type of base data required:

 the internal detailed base data does not necessarily have to be consistent with mid-year estimates, as only the proportions from it are required;

 the external base data should preferably be consistent with mid-year estimates in order to obtain the correct level of growth between the base year and forecast year.

2.1.4 The internal detailed population and household data was constructed using 2011 Census data and proportions from the 2008-2011 LTDS Household Survey. Where the full level of detail required was not available from these statistics it was estimated by furnessing. Appropriate consistency checks were also applied to ensure that the data set was self-consistent. Where necessary, minor alterations were made to the furnessed data to ensure self-consistency, but these alterations were kept to a minimum.

1 1oap – 1 adult of pensionable age, moap – 2+ adults all of pensionable age, 1ade – 1 adult of working age, mase – 2+ adults not all of pensionable age

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 3 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

2.1.5 No attempt was made to adjust the template of internal data to match 2011 mid-year estimates.

2.1.6 The external base data was extracted from 2011 Census data (for households, population, workers and cars) and TEMPRO v6.2 data (jobs).

2.1.7 The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows:

 Section 2.2 gives details of the construction of the household categorisation used in the car ownership model;

 Section 2.3 gives details of the base household income data used in the car ownership model;

 Section 2.4 gives details of the borough level car ownership proportions, which are used as constraints in the car ownership model;

 Section 2.5 gives details of the base internal household car ownership data;

 Section 2.6 gives details of the base internal detailed population data; and

 Section 2.7 gives details of the base external planning data.

2.2 Internal Base Household Split

2.2.1 The household split file (hhldsplt) gives several breakdowns of households, as shown in 0.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 4 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

Table 1 Household Split Categories

LTS Code Description of Household hh__ All hh_schd All with at least one child hh_semp All with one employed resident hh_padu All with at least three adults 1ade One person of working age 1adeschd One person of working age with at least one child 1adesemp One person of working age with at least one employed resident 1oap One adult of pensionable age 1oapsemp One adult of pensionable age with at least one employed resident mase 2+ adults not all of pensionable age maseschd 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with at least one child masesemp 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with at least one employed resident mase___S 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with at least one car masesemS 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with at least one car and at least one employed resident masepadS 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with at least one car and at least 3 adults mase___1 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with exactly one car masepad1 2+ adults not all of pensionable age with exactly one car and at least 3 adults moap 2+ adults all of pensionable age moapsemp 2+ adults all of pensionable age with at least one employed resident moap___S 2+ adults all of pensionable age with at least one car moapsemS 2+ adults all of pensionable age with at least one car and at least one employed resident moappadS 2+ adults all of pensionable age with at least one car and at least 3 adults moap___1 2+ adults all of pensionable age with exactly one car moappad1 2+ adults all of pensionable age with exactly one car and at least 3 adults

2.2.2 Values for each of these categories were extracted for 2011 at zonal level for all zones in the internal area (London boroughs and inside the M25). Appendix A gives details of the sources used to obtain these values.

2.3 Household Income Parameters

2.3.1 The car ownership model requires a household income term at zonal level (the square root of the income is used in the calibration of the car ownership model).

2.3.2 The income data used in the B7 LTS model was taken from those used in the B5.x LTS model as data were not available at the development stage of the model.

2.3.3 The income categories required are:

1ade_inc income of households with one person of working age

1oap_inc income of households with one person of pensionable age

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 5 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

mase_inc income of households with 2+ adults not all of pensionable age

mase_inS income of households with 2+ adults not all of pensionable age and at least one car

mase_in1 income of households with 2+ adults not all of pensionable age and exactly one car

moap_inc income of households with 2+ adults all of pensionable age

moap_inS income of households with 2+ adults all of pensionable age and at least one car

moap_in1 income of households with 2+ adults all of pensionable age and exactly one car

2.3.4 The income data is treated as though it contributes to the residual disutility of each zone in the car ownership model, rather than a separate variable in its own right. The income values at the time of calibration are used for all forecast years.

2.4 Internal 2011 Car Ownership Proportions at Zonal Level

2.4.1 The PCOTE model requires three sets of car ownership proportions as constraints to the car ownership model (cowninput). The constraints for B7.0 have been prepared at the LTS zonal level and are:

car1 Proportion of households with at least one car

car2 Proportion of car owning households with more than one car

lic1 Proportion of one car owning households with more than one licence

2.4.2 The sources of these proportions are Census and LTDS, and are detailed in Appendix A.

2.4.3 For future years, these constraints are created in consultation with TfL and the GLA, as an input. Full details of the future year projections are given in Chapter 3.

2.5 Internal Base Household Car Ownership Split

2.5.1 A cross tabulation of the main four household types with the four main car ownership household types is required at the zonal level for the base year (hhcobase.2011). However, some values of the cross tabulation are assumed to be virtually zero, for example one adult households with two or more cars are treated as one adult households with one car.

2.5.2 The valid categorisations are given in Table 2 below.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 6 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

Table 2 Household and Car Ownership Cross Tabulation

LTS Code Household Categorisation Car Ownership Categorisation 1ade_0c_ 1 adult of working age 0 car 1ade_sc_ 1 adult of working age 1 car 1oap_0c_ 1 adult of pensionable age 0 car 1oap_sc_ 1 adult of pensionable age 1 car mase_0c_ 2+ adults not all of pens age 0 car mase_1c1 2+ adults not all of pens age 1 car, 1 licence mase_1cm 2+ adults not all of pens age 1 car, 2+ licences mase_mc_ 2+ adults not all of pens age 2+ cars moap_0c_ 2+ adults all of pens age 0 car moap_1c1 2+ adults all of pens age 1 car, 1 licence moap_1cm 2+ adults all of pens age 1 car, 2+ licences moap_mc_ 2+ adults all of pens age 2+ cars

2.5.3 The sources of these data are given in Appendix A, and furnessing was used in the construction of this data. The data was then adjusted so that the total number of households in each household composition category (1oap/moap/1ade/mase) matched the corresponding totals in the household split file (see Section 2.2) at zonal level. This adjustment was performed by applying a common scaling factor to all the household car ownership categories within each household composition category, for each zone.

2.6 Internal Base Detailed Population Data

2.6.1 As well as the household categories described above, the PCOTE model requires a person breakdown by household and car ownership type (as described in the preceding section). The people categorisations required are as follows:

chld Children aged 5-15 inclusive

waww Working aged adult in white collar employment

wawb Working aged adult in blue collar employment

wane Working aged adult not in employment

pens Pensionable aged adult

2.6.2 Details of how these data were obtained are given in Appendix A.

2.6.3 As this data file was also produced by furnessing, adjustments were made to ensure that, within each household car ownership category and each zone, the population by person type was consistent with the number of households.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 7 LTS B7.0 Planning Data

2.7 External Base Planning Data

2.7.1 Unlike the Internal area, the base year planning data for the external area consists of just five planning data categories:

Populatn population (including those aged under 5)

hholds households

workers workers (aged 16 to 74)

jobs jobs

cars cars

2.7.2 The external planning data was constructed by:

 extracting the data for all external zones from 2011 Census data (population, households, workers, cars); and

 extracting the data for all external zones from TEMPRO v6.2 employment data (jobs).

2.7.3 Details of the Census data fields extracted at zonal level are given in Appendix A.

2.7.4 The LTS South East area comprises:

 the whole of the South East and GLA areas, according to the Government Office Definition; and

 Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire counties and Southend, Thurrock and Luton unitary authorities.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 8

3 Future Year Planning Data

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This chapter gives details of the sources used to construct:

 the ‘summary’ planning data used for each internal zone; and

 the planning data for each external zone;

for the 2011 base year and all future forecast years.

3.1.2 In constructing the internal trip end productions, the LTS trip end model, PCOTE, applies trip production rates to detailed population data for each zone segmented by:

 household car ownership category of the households in which the population is resident; and

 person type

ie at the same level of detail as the base year population data described in Section 2.6.

3.1.3 For all home-based trip purposes, the trip attractions are estimated by applying trip attraction rates to relevant variables drawn from households, employment data, school enrolment and retail floorspace for each zone.

3.1.4 Forecasts of population data at this level of detail are not generally available from published statistics for all future forecast years. Therefore, the detailed future year summary data is automatically constructed within PCOTE from the mid-year future summary data (which contains somewhat fewer fields of input data), using proportions from the template of detailed internal data and a series of models in PCOTE:

 the Household Split model;

 the Car Ownership model; and

 the Household Structure model;

to obtain the appropriate segmentation of the internal population.

(Note: the three models listed above are documented in the PCOTE report.)

3.1.5 The source of the internal area future year summary data used in the B7.0 Reference Forecasts was taken from the “Scaled SHLAA2 Results V3.xlsx” data file. This data was supplied at zonal level, for years 2011 to 2041 at a 5- year interval, by PBA and is based on GLA’s Scaled SHLAA forecast (19-11- 2013).

3.1.6 The forecasts are a ward-based allocation of GLA’s forecast and SHLAA to LTS zones. The baseline data is 2011 Census allocated to LTS zones by postal

2 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 9 Future Year Planning Data

point. The OA population in LTS grows at the ward rate. The data is finally controlled to GLA Borough totals.

3.1.7 For the external zones, just five fields of information are required for each forecast year. The external future year planning data was produced by applying TEMPRO v6.2 proportional growth to the 2011 base year data.

3.2 Summary Data Fields required for Internal Zones

3.2.1 The following fields are required, for each internal zone and for each forecast year, as inputs into PCOTE:

hh__ total households

pp__ total population

pp__5ovr total population aged 5 and over

chld ‘children’ aged 5 to 15

waww adults of working age in white collar employment

wawb adults of working age in blue collar employment

wane adults of working age, not in employment

pens adults of pensionable age

jobw white collar jobs

jobb blue collar jobs

3.2.2 In the B7.0 forecasts, ‘working age’ is based on existing pension age and current understanding of future pensionable age. The ‘working age’ is given in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Working age used in the B7.0 LTS model

Forecast year Female Male 2011 16-59 16-65 2016 16-62 16-64 2021, 2026 and 2031 16-65 16-65 2036 and 2041 16-66 16-66

3.2.3 In the data supplied by PBA, most of these fields are supplied directly for each internal zone and for each forecast year.

3.3 White/Blue split for workers and jobs

3.3.1 The blue/white split is based on ONS-SOC2011 classification according to Table 4 below.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 10 Future Year Planning Data

Table 4 ONS-SOC2011 classification

SOC SOC grouping description LTS Grouping Classification 1 Managers and senior officials White 2 Professional occupations White 3 Associate professional and technical occupations White 4 Administrative and secretarial occupations White 5 Skilled trade occupations Blue 6 Personal service occupations White 7 Sales and customer service occupations Blue 8 Process plant and machine operatives Blue 9 Elementary occupations Blue

3.4 Economically active students

3.4.1 Economically active students are those age 16 and above and not in full-time education. In the LTS model, they are all assumed to be employed. In the data supplied by PBA, economically active students are included in the data for adults of working age not in employment. These students are subsequently reallocated to the adults of working age in employment and split pro-rata according to the zonal proportion of white and blue workers.

3.5 Checks and adjustments

3.5.1 Prior to transferring the data onto Apollo, a series of basic checks was carried out to ensure the data was self-consistent.

3.5.2 In addition, PCOTE also carries out some consistency checks once the base data has been used to split the households and allocate the population to different categories. The PCOTE run terminates if the data fails these consistency checks.

3.5.3 In each forecast, there were a small number of zones which failed these consistency checks when running PCOTE without making any adjustments to the data supplied by PBA. In these cases, the planning data was modified by transferring some of the population from one of the five population categories to another in the summary data. Whenever possible, this transfer was done to minimise the impact on the trip end forecasts.

3.5.4 For example, if it were necessary to transfer population between the working age adult and pensionable age adult age groups, the preferred option would be to transfer people between pens (pensionable age adults) and wane (working age adults not in employment) as these two categories are expected to have similar trip making characteristics dominated by home-based other purpose trips. In any case, these adjustments were minor.

3.5.5 The final internal LTS planning data is summarised at borough level in Section 3.6.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 11 Future Year Planning Data

3.6 Summary of B7.0 Internal Planning Data

3.6.1 Table 5 to Table 10 summarise the final input planning data to the B7.0 forecasts for 2011 to 2041, at borough level.

Table 5 Internal Households by year at Borough level 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 70,107 79,447 85,868 91,688 97,130 106,478 115,345 Barnet 136,346 154,155 164,469 177,314 187,026 194,366 200,721 Bexley 92,905 95,821 98,219 100,824 103,818 106,230 108,090 Brent 110,664 118,648 125,746 132,017 137,098 140,463 143,074 Bromley 131,353 136,734 140,300 143,873 148,117 152,303 155,710 Camden 97,480 103,106 107,649 111,459 117,569 122,370 126,537 City 4,410 4,939 5,732 6,277 6,702 7,180 7,627 Croydon 145,586 155,822 163,024 170,946 178,717 186,792 193,915 Ealing 124,405 131,412 137,886 144,031 150,265 155,733 160,402 Enfield 120,486 125,318 129,776 133,723 137,845 141,992 145,386 Greenwich 101,435 117,270 130,779 142,399 151,303 156,370 160,584 Hackney 102,084 110,633 118,340 126,711 135,041 143,115 150,472 H&F 80,589 85,203 90,642 94,996 99,540 103,606 107,128 Haringey 102,213 110,582 119,177 125,254 130,717 135,782 140,132 Harrow 84,773 88,588 91,806 94,769 98,172 101,837 104,989 Havering 97,478 104,771 110,954 116,491 119,958 123,454 126,325 Hillingdon 100,822 106,334 109,562 112,297 115,497 118,111 120,086 Hounslow 95,267 99,488 103,958 108,162 112,776 116,606 119,828 Islington 93,677 102,382 108,740 112,628 117,797 123,879 129,320 K&C 78,360 81,475 84,742 89,238 92,527 94,616 96,212 Kingston 63,798 67,120 70,420 73,241 75,995 79,059 81,717 Lambeth 130,639 140,332 148,220 155,231 163,521 174,568 184,754 Lewisham 116,550 126,155 133,962 139,678 146,051 151,343 155,815 Merton 79,095 82,378 84,706 86,824 89,531 92,139 94,258 Newham 102,340 118,711 133,667 148,610 160,209 167,656 174,196 Redbridge 99,970 106,173 112,329 117,792 123,156 127,497 131,170 Richmond 80,071 82,782 84,638 86,361 88,717 91,114 93,032 Southwark 120,650 134,300 149,163 159,498 167,620 175,386 182,230 Sutton 78,573 81,297 83,328 85,314 87,792 90,210 92,154 Tower H 102,051 120,011 142,776 159,371 168,861 176,176 182,547 W. Forest 97,430 103,653 107,959 112,238 117,307 122,321 126,700 Wands. 130,829 139,156 148,250 156,737 165,436 171,924 177,512 Westmin. 105,903 112,816 118,965 123,442 128,150 133,866 138,905

Central 105,756 117,750 132,147 142,762 151,715 159,975 166,043 Inner LB 1,262,019 1,372,052 1,477,878 1,566,369 1,648,027 1,721,491 1,787,346 Outer LB 1,910,565 2,037,213 2,135,727 2,230,305 2,320,220 2,403,077 2,473,488 GLA area 3,278,340 3,527,015 3,745,752 3,939,436 4,119,961 4,284,543 4,426,877 Annulus 358,941 373,532 388,112 398,738 410,005 421,318 432,650 Total 3,637,281 3,900,547 4,133,864 4,338,175 4,529,967 4,705,861 4,859,527 Internal Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 12 Future Year Planning Data

Table 6 Internal Population (including persons aged under 5) at Borough level 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 187,418 211,581 226,112 237,392 246,254 264,522 281,855 Barnet 357,653 402,503 422,389 447,552 462,534 471,810 480,638 Bexley 233,002 237,201 240,012 243,170 246,698 248,461 249,644 Brent 313,084 327,713 339,109 348,141 353,758 356,156 358,672 Bromley 311,110 322,617 328,311 333,104 338,537 344,078 348,440 Camden 220,087 233,260 241,220 247,546 260,091 270,766 280,151 City 7,412 8,411 9,725 10,566 11,199 11,928 12,616 Croydon 364,815 383,619 394,028 405,999 416,160 427,272 437,305 Ealing 339,665 355,449 367,643 378,038 388,171 397,420 406,293 Enfield 314,011 319,305 323,185 326,115 329,735 334,467 338,525 Greenwich 255,483 291,833 320,840 343,565 358,167 363,960 368,807 Hackney 247,578 263,185 276,084 290,528 305,466 321,024 336,183 H&F 182,790 195,742 208,233 217,307 227,040 236,544 245,313 Haringey 256,438 273,821 290,575 301,128 310,725 320,319 328,741 Harrow 241,063 247,615 252,433 255,492 259,671 265,412 270,862 Havering 238,281 256,611 270,934 282,489 287,888 292,371 295,561 Hillingdon 276,134 291,797 298,383 302,764 307,608 310,899 313,273 Hounslow 255,334 264,808 273,493 280,589 287,991 293,976 299,650 Islington 206,639 226,734 239,262 245,796 255,541 267,577 278,157 K&C 158,652 165,172 170,706 178,758 184,625 189,020 192,997 Kingston 160,469 170,024 177,209 182,775 187,511 192,939 197,758 Lambeth 304,808 327,111 342,525 355,038 371,019 394,416 416,522 Lewisham 277,525 298,430 313,427 322,066 331,976 340,282 347,537 Merton 201,226 207,561 210,795 212,978 215,823 218,809 221,281 Newham 311,912 349,709 381,949 414,114 437,336 450,377 461,897 Redbridge 281,521 297,707 311,571 321,694 330,419 336,391 341,775 Richmond 187,527 195,059 197,716 199,183 201,468 204,529 207,385 Southwark 289,361 320,410 350,651 368,991 382,036 394,653 405,413 Sutton 191,515 197,030 200,603 203,409 206,144 208,886 211,377 Tower H 256,685 293,198 339,344 370,243 386,075 397,626 407,824 W. Forest 260,397 274,721 282,798 289,361 297,394 305,405 312,641 Wands. 308,300 332,799 354,258 372,569 390,573 403,845 415,088 Westmin. 219,582 236,903 247,770 255,259 263,734 274,735 284,594

Central 220,602 247,532 274,868 293,729 310,695 326,300 337,536 Inner LB 3,027,166 3,277,353 3,490,860 3,656,178 3,806,740 3,946,811 4,075,496 Outer LB 4,969,707 5,254,756 5,437,564 5,593,810 5,721,931 5,837,764 5,941,741 GLA area 8,217,475 8,779,641 9,203,293 9,543,718 9,839,366 10,110,876 10,354,773 Annulus 886,234 912,453 945,984 974,293 999,449 1,022,793 1,045,227 Total 9,103,709 9,692,094 10,149,277 10,518,011 10,838,815 11,133,669 11,400,001 Internal Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 13 Future Year Planning Data

Table 7 Internal Workers (excluding econ. active students) by year at Borough level – white

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 37,677 42,847 46,021 48,781 51,078 55,692 59,035 Barnet 114,493 128,108 132,844 138,439 142,318 145,126 146,698 Bexley 64,863 66,039 66,246 66,302 67,168 67,595 67,230 Brent 80,872 83,206 85,552 87,185 88,618 89,169 89,080 Bromley 103,659 107,420 108,651 108,960 110,438 112,197 112,500 Camden 81,210 86,596 89,969 91,956 95,799 99,593 102,622 City 4,070 4,627 5,369 5,676 5,932 6,279 6,545 Croydon 108,539 113,926 116,300 119,324 122,258 125,883 127,766 Ealing 98,793 101,901 104,833 107,037 109,220 111,324 112,978 Enfield 82,496 83,881 84,825 85,152 85,775 86,996 87,349 Greenwich 70,917 82,159 90,550 96,631 100,708 102,532 103,187 Hackney 82,047 87,681 92,542 97,539 102,626 108,144 112,816 H&F 74,287 78,762 83,291 86,446 90,111 93,922 97,006 Haringey 79,730 85,956 91,166 93,735 96,372 99,535 101,794 Harrow 72,240 73,601 74,549 74,654 75,893 77,864 79,008 Havering 66,175 71,200 73,963 75,872 77,255 78,682 79,162 Hillingdon 74,543 78,629 79,759 80,380 81,763 82,783 82,767 Hounslow 73,616 75,312 77,281 78,937 81,123 82,906 83,921 Islington 79,857 88,133 92,664 94,690 98,433 103,399 107,172 K&C 63,940 65,944 68,062 70,332 71,908 73,484 74,457 Kingston 54,676 57,757 59,776 61,123 62,678 64,527 65,651 Lambeth 117,388 126,644 132,622 137,045 142,920 152,190 160,060 Lewisham 88,527 95,683 100,135 102,494 105,364 107,953 109,660 Merton 70,140 70,894 71,578 72,035 73,155 74,264 74,473 Newham 60,758 71,195 79,496 87,683 94,231 97,728 99,964 Redbridge 79,587 83,434 86,434 88,302 90,953 92,987 94,076 Richmond 76,924 78,961 79,459 79,442 80,180 81,396 81,762 Southwark 98,413 109,593 119,412 124,860 129,267 133,790 136,993 Sutton 61,679 63,013 63,526 63,917 64,861 65,794 65,907 Tower H 82,569 94,843 112,331 124,251 130,727 135,464 138,653 W. Forest 67,882 71,010 72,949 74,551 76,788 78,904 80,250 Wands. 137,749 146,386 154,642 161,298 169,053 175,421 179,729 Westmin. 85,888 93,322 97,769 100,034 103,066 107,517 110,631

Central 87,703 99,207 110,607 117,776 123,293 129,446 133,177 Inner LB 1,048,730 1,136,157 1,208,863 1,260,264 1,312,516 1,364,973 1,404,924 Outer LB 1,459,772 1,533,299 1,575,096 1,607,024 1,642,229 1,676,621 1,692,801 GLA area 2,596,205 2,768,663 2,894,566 2,985,064 3,078,038 3,171,040 3,230,902 Annulus 291,677 300,747 304,621 306,752 305,685 312,929 308,226 Total 2,887,882 3,069,411 3,199,187 3,291,816 3,383,723 3,483,970 3,539,128 Internal

Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 14 Future Year Planning Data

Table 8 Internal Workers (excluding econ. active students) by year at Borough level – blue 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 32,469 36,962 39,502 41,745 43,628 47,138 49,996 Barnet 41,994 48,024 50,506 53,692 55,768 57,138 57,720 Bexley 37,774 38,496 38,713 38,797 39,289 39,530 39,325 Brent 54,609 56,862 58,652 59,904 60,980 61,511 61,457 Bromley 37,278 38,537 38,869 38,951 39,507 40,167 40,302 Camden 17,685 19,153 20,087 20,572 21,766 22,803 23,430 City 376 427 486 536 559 592 616 Croydon 51,845 54,166 55,221 56,508 57,792 59,325 60,113 Ealing 54,109 55,981 57,303 58,543 60,358 62,143 63,088 Enfield 44,659 45,483 46,009 46,427 46,983 47,685 47,836 Greenwich 37,261 42,245 46,040 49,365 51,805 52,803 53,108 Hackney 29,787 31,826 33,341 35,028 36,939 38,989 40,723 H&F 18,688 20,058 21,315 22,114 23,137 24,266 25,082 Haringey 36,443 39,894 42,768 44,234 45,650 47,197 48,195 Harrow 32,878 33,481 33,811 33,840 34,345 35,170 35,648 Havering 39,032 42,153 44,318 45,447 46,263 47,105 47,386 Hillingdon 44,714 47,129 47,569 47,978 48,869 49,510 49,522 Hounslow 43,890 44,946 45,977 46,960 48,328 49,451 50,066 Islington 20,151 22,221 23,396 23,904 24,853 26,113 27,062 K&C 10,776 11,207 11,707 12,293 12,741 13,082 13,230 Kingston 19,453 20,562 21,273 21,725 22,313 22,989 23,419 Lambeth 40,161 43,174 45,089 46,322 48,263 51,367 54,041 Lewisham 37,735 40,966 43,116 44,326 45,810 47,110 47,837 Merton 28,068 28,545 28,756 28,938 29,357 29,734 29,755 Newham 57,078 64,432 70,067 75,179 79,202 81,768 83,660 Redbridge 36,260 38,305 39,900 41,014 42,384 43,429 43,934 Richmond 15,126 15,527 15,586 15,537 15,656 15,887 15,959 Southwark 38,252 42,525 46,365 48,386 49,983 51,670 52,817 Sutton 29,385 30,029 30,286 30,418 30,798 31,187 31,207 Tower H 30,133 34,763 39,804 42,819 44,583 46,116 47,246 W. Forest 44,638 46,663 48,029 49,193 50,783 52,255 53,127 Wands. 31,064 33,520 35,547 37,259 39,151 40,692 41,713 Westmin. 16,925 18,356 19,218 19,690 20,222 21,008 21,571

Central 17,461 19,868 22,264 23,783 25,158 26,398 27,115 Inner LB 367,793 402,653 430,043 448,878 467,704 486,374 500,108 Outer LB 725,442 764,095 786,321 804,982 825,207 844,158 852,968 GLA area 1,110,696 1,186,616 1,238,629 1,277,643 1,318,068 1,356,930 1,380,191 Annulus 124,505 128,839 131,009 132,125 132,110 135,777 133,547 Total 1,235,201 1,315,454 1,369,638 1,409,768 1,450,178 1,492,707 1,513,738 Internal

Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 15 Future Year Planning Data

Table 9 Internal Jobs by year at Borough level – white 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 28,977 30,003 30,640 31,331 32,348 33,419 34,491 Barnet 102,659 102,885 104,426 106,281 108,943 112,402 115,872 Bexley 45,011 44,839 45,380 46,146 47,103 48,172 49,238 Brent 73,041 77,227 79,498 81,970 84,407 87,034 89,668 Bromley 76,362 76,890 78,418 80,323 82,226 84,139 86,038 Camden 270,253 280,179 287,726 297,489 306,706 316,658 326,608 City 351,774 357,582 368,574 378,659 388,209 398,650 409,092 Croydon 90,217 91,241 94,453 97,686 100,766 104,091 107,413 Ealing 91,036 88,819 89,866 91,781 93,719 95,864 98,009 Enfield 69,298 70,885 71,434 72,322 73,757 75,433 77,128 Greenwich 53,940 61,287 65,890 71,314 76,151 81,179 86,161 Hackney 78,242 77,347 79,441 81,758 86,063 90,684 95,322 H&F 109,140 115,474 121,387 128,092 135,199 140,693 146,223 Haringey 47,098 49,120 50,300 53,126 55,744 58,552 61,407 Harrow 59,731 62,133 62,970 63,868 64,862 65,926 66,988 Havering 50,778 52,050 52,560 53,210 53,884 54,585 55,280 Hillingdon 130,682 134,570 139,192 143,231 144,716 146,488 148,266 Hounslow 110,847 110,515 113,052 116,025 119,103 122,231 125,312 Islington 161,786 171,388 180,321 185,703 191,163 197,279 203,487 K&C 99,580 102,553 105,216 108,310 111,486 112,956 114,425 Kingston 49,881 52,162 52,562 53,129 54,245 55,591 56,964 Lambeth 108,265 111,113 114,289 120,282 125,772 131,585 137,391 Lewisham 55,158 58,105 60,176 62,549 64,926 67,473 70,017 Merton 53,813 54,840 55,988 57,379 58,814 60,276 61,734 Newham 51,939 56,402 64,599 72,080 82,303 92,934 103,559 Redbridge 46,217 49,729 50,606 51,719 52,839 53,964 55,084 Richmond 69,695 69,282 71,234 73,488 75,002 76,145 77,290 Southwark 189,494 206,873 211,557 217,129 223,862 231,233 238,640 Sutton 52,199 52,629 53,219 54,014 54,829 55,639 56,427 Tower H 199,806 225,187 256,181 278,473 296,242 314,980 333,733 W. Forest 43,852 45,134 46,077 47,232 48,424 49,644 50,864 Wands. 89,399 93,573 97,248 100,617 108,044 115,718 123,361 Westmin. 533,969 535,882 540,390 547,146 553,981 560,754 567,518

Central 1,357,688 1,399,209 1,439,596 1,480,333 1,520,427 1,563,267 1,606,311 Inner LB 988,217 1,041,569 1,097,810 1,151,080 1,209,274 1,266,882 1,324,473 Outer LB 1,298,236 1,327,122 1,357,465 1,392,448 1,426,136 1,462,223 1,498,226 GLA area 3,644,140 3,767,900 3,894,871 4,023,861 4,155,836 4,292,372 4,429,009 Annulus 321,601 340,715 348,784 354,832 359,193 366,821 374,618 Total Internal 3,965,742 4,108,615 4,243,655 4,378,694 4,515,030 4,659,194 4,803,628 Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 16 Future Year Planning Data

Table 10 Internal Jobs by year at Borough level – blue 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 23,251 23,670 23,844 24,255 24,800 25,425 26,050 Barnet 40,537 40,637 41,210 42,033 43,226 44,775 46,314 Bexley 31,023 30,830 31,113 31,618 32,200 32,841 33,485 Brent 37,749 39,841 40,845 42,008 43,204 44,513 45,814 Bromley 41,441 41,592 42,302 43,117 44,011 44,952 45,907 Camden 47,873 49,923 51,447 53,351 55,146 57,085 59,027 City 66,599 67,697 69,761 71,652 73,441 75,398 77,353 Croydon 43,316 43,584 44,789 46,044 47,232 48,527 49,825 Ealing 52,068 50,779 51,402 52,436 53,460 54,595 55,730 Enfield 38,282 38,973 39,246 39,659 40,510 41,367 42,205 Greenwich 25,342 28,751 30,909 33,076 35,131 37,350 39,614 Hackney 30,396 30,389 31,486 32,437 34,281 36,161 38,023 H&F 27,127 28,378 30,080 31,973 33,927 35,330 36,696 Haringey 26,105 27,152 27,903 29,669 31,295 32,978 34,613 Harrow 15,652 16,161 16,241 16,568 16,839 17,066 17,295 Havering 30,536 31,178 31,332 31,675 32,029 32,375 32,728 Hillingdon 65,897 67,942 70,348 72,459 73,276 74,235 75,187 Hounslow 34,686 34,323 34,826 35,523 36,205 36,901 37,642 Islington 34,338 36,150 37,647 39,062 40,489 41,820 43,059 K&C 34,021 34,984 35,832 36,855 37,915 38,397 38,881 Kingston 28,337 29,593 29,807 30,180 30,897 31,735 32,548 Lambeth 37,473 38,124 39,078 40,799 42,379 44,090 45,808 Lewisham 17,564 18,553 19,529 20,535 21,345 22,205 23,067 Merton 30,216 30,665 31,259 31,962 32,682 33,418 34,158 Newham 34,719 38,194 44,448 49,900 57,103 64,555 72,013 Redbridge 27,827 29,889 30,365 30,927 31,529 32,157 32,792 Richmond 24,213 24,022 24,663 25,407 25,914 26,282 26,648 Southwark 51,046 54,778 55,394 56,809 58,566 60,338 62,068 Sutton 24,120 24,194 24,306 24,522 24,744 24,982 25,242 Tower H 46,255 51,423 57,796 62,504 66,320 70,309 74,284 W. Forest 26,357 27,098 27,700 28,388 29,093 29,809 30,527 Wands. 33,582 35,136 36,109 37,005 39,231 41,689 44,177 Westmin. 122,324 122,754 123,728 125,189 126,676 128,194 129,722

Central 251,180 257,746 264,505 271,815 279,052 286,609 294,157 Inner LB 358,242 375,889 395,733 415,924 439,062 461,938 484,633 Outer LB 640,847 653,721 666,506 681,857 696,981 713,304 729,711 GLA area 1,250,269 1,287,356 1,326,743 1,369,596 1,415,095 1,461,851 1,508,502 Annulus 140,234 148,613 152,225 154,922 156,818 160,077 163,388 Total Internal 1,390,503 1,435,970 1,478,969 1,524,519 1,571,913 1,621,928 1,671,890 Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

3.7 B7.0 Attraction Planning Data

3.7.1 The DMS Attraction model requires both secondary school enrolments (Table 11) and full time university students (Table 12) in each of the LTS zones for the LTS Internal area. The required data is the number of students enrolled.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 17 Future Year Planning Data

3.7.2 It also requires retail floorspace (m2) for each LTS zone of the LTS Internal area (Table 13), ideally, occupied floorspace which is a better indicator for attracting shoppers and visitors. However, data is not available separately by occupied and unoccupied space. PBA expressed their view that as the double- dip recession occurred after the new base year of 2011, the amount of empty retail space within the data should not constitute a major issue.

Table 11 Internal students in secondary education by year at Borough level 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 13,406 14,018 16,988 18,466 19,341 19,805 20,211 Barnet 24,897 25,554 28,722 31,378 32,364 31,988 31,605 Bexley 19,487 17,845 19,030 20,014 20,151 19,818 19,437 Brent 18,965 18,530 20,189 22,311 22,604 21,984 21,539 Bromley 24,694 23,471 25,931 27,516 27,347 27,038 26,708 Camden 12,351 13,091 13,245 13,468 13,466 13,422 13,362 City 1,536 1,691 1,925 2,204 2,278 2,308 2,323 Croydon 24,296 22,952 25,795 27,618 27,777 27,309 27,061 Ealing 20,160 19,962 22,406 24,289 24,481 24,006 23,727 Enfield 22,712 21,898 24,202 25,058 25,147 24,762 24,452 Greenwich 15,927 16,083 18,947 20,950 21,765 21,540 21,279 Hackney 10,886 10,704 11,627 12,392 12,760 12,831 12,833 H&F 10,317 10,420 11,886 12,826 12,902 12,855 12,817 Haringey 14,953 14,240 14,401 15,254 15,673 15,731 15,647 Harrow 15,059 14,165 15,343 16,587 16,791 16,479 16,238 Havering 16,774 15,683 17,464 19,302 20,214 20,115 19,806 Hillingdon 20,400 19,786 22,174 24,200 24,531 24,009 23,666 Hounslow 16,952 16,498 19,221 21,154 21,281 20,845 20,633 Islington 8,401 8,299 9,262 10,224 10,523 10,606 10,629 K&C 8,452 9,280 9,751 9,733 9,452 9,203 9,070 Kingston 12,197 12,389 14,181 15,460 15,439 15,249 15,173 Lambeth 10,733 10,539 11,467 12,317 12,579 12,711 12,794 Lewisham 15,130 14,395 16,394 17,623 17,946 17,897 17,802 Merton 10,687 10,663 12,520 13,673 13,376 13,014 12,824 Newham 18,959 18,113 19,490 21,585 23,021 23,055 22,892 Redbridge 23,124 22,879 25,268 28,272 29,402 29,117 28,771 Richmond 11,373 12,073 14,126 14,902 14,378 14,068 13,942 Southwark 16,203 15,564 17,734 19,717 20,557 20,678 20,651 Sutton 16,454 15,455 17,513 19,067 18,910 18,418 18,075 Tower H 16,009 16,895 18,987 22,122 24,056 24,162 23,936 W. Forest 15,147 15,587 17,905 19,417 19,613 19,360 19,218 Wands. 14,138 14,617 16,966 19,124 19,616 19,555 19,435 Westmin. 13,429 14,362 15,313 16,042 16,083 15,994 15,946

Central 12,193 12,811 13,908 14,952 15,181 15,198 15,197 Inner LB 159,304 159,399 174,540 189,678 195,731 195,810 194,939 Outer LB 342,711 335,492 377,924 409,633 414,912 408,923 404,365 GLA area 514,208 507,702 566,372 614,263 625,825 619,931 614,501 Annulus 64,680 62,794 70,212 73,460 76,927 80,624 84,564 Total 578,888 570,496 636,583 687,723 702,751 700,555 699,065 Internal Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 18 Future Year Planning Data

Table 12 Internal students in tertiary education by year at Borough level

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 46 259 281 304 329 357 387 Barnet 6,954 7,531 8,148 8,765 9,500 10,297 11,161 Bexley 615 663 717 771 836 906 982 Brent 9,189 9,900 10,711 11,521 12,487 13,535 14,670 Bromley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Camden 47,096 50,738 54,935 59,089 64,045 69,418 75,241 City 4,603 4,959 5,365 5,771 6,255 6,780 7,348 Croydon 645 695 752 809 876 950 1,030 Ealing 2,462 2,653 2,870 3,087 3,346 3,627 3,931 Enfield 1,294 1,394 1,508 1,622 1,758 1,905 2,065 Greenwich 22,349 24,077 26,049 28,018 30,369 32,916 35,677 Hackney 2,156 2,323 2,513 2,703 2,929 3,175 3,442 H&F 2,695 2,903 3,141 3,378 3,662 3,969 4,302 Haringey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Harrow 127 137 148 159 173 187 203 Havering 1,007 1,085 1,174 1,262 1,368 1,483 1,608 Hillingdon 19,771 21,300 23,044 25,508 27,647 29,967 32,480 Hounslow 6,202 6,681 7,228 7,775 8,427 9,134 9,900 Islington 30,312 32,656 35,331 38,002 41,190 44,646 48,391 K&C 4,186 4,510 4,879 5,248 5,688 6,165 6,682 Kingston 19,758 21,381 23,761 25,563 27,708 30,032 32,552 Lambeth 8,644 9,312 10,075 10,837 11,746 12,731 13,799 Lewisham 7,316 7,882 8,528 9,172 9,942 10,776 11,680 Merton 2,450 2,640 2,856 3,072 3,330 3,609 3,912 Newham 18,962 21,155 22,890 24,627 26,693 28,932 31,359 Redbridge 27 29 31 34 37 40 43 Richmond 3,520 3,792 4,103 4,413 4,783 5,184 5,619 Southwark 24,194 26,285 28,439 30,591 33,157 35,939 38,953 Sutton 63 68 73 1,893 2,052 2,224 2,411 Tower H 13,088 14,100 15,255 16,408 17,785 19,277 20,894 W. Forest 140 151 163 176 190 206 223 Wands. 13,200 14,670 15,873 17,559 19,032 20,629 22,359 Westmin. 38,609 41,902 45,334 48,765 52,855 57,289 62,095

Central 118,778 128,491 139,057 149,576 162,123 175,723 190,464 Inner LB 96,283 104,906 113,500 122,574 132,856 144,001 156,081 Outer LB 96,618 104,435 113,617 124,751 135,216 146,559 158,853 GLA area 311,679 337,832 366,174 396,900 430,195 466,283 505,398 Annulus 551 610 675 747 827 916 1,014 Total Internal 312,230 338,441 366,849 397,648 431,023 467,199 506,413 Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 19 Future Year Planning Data

Table 13 Internal retail floor space (m2) by year at Borough level 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 Barking 254,000 273,700 279,024 279,024 279,024 279,024 279,024 Barnet 642,000 642,000 647,822 781,922 781,922 781,922 781,922 Bexley 371,000 374,551 402,926 402,926 402,926 402,926 402,926 Brent 471,000 485,026 527,445 527,445 527,445 527,445 527,445 Bromley 626,000 626,125 626,125 675,754 675,754 675,754 675,754 Camden 645,000 689,608 688,879 688,879 688,879 688,879 688,879 City 258,000 283,557 286,482 286,482 286,482 286,482 286,482 Croydon 775,000 775,235 814,320 816,180 816,180 816,180 816,180 Ealing 527,000 531,436 553,786 553,786 553,786 553,786 553,786 Enfield 558,000 558,000 558,570 558,570 558,570 558,570 558,570 Greenwich 387,005 460,996 464,766 473,565 473,565 473,565 473,565 Hackney 327,000 329,221 335,698 335,698 335,698 335,698 335,698 H&F 593,000 593,000 677,365 677,365 677,365 677,365 677,365 Haringey 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 Harrow 340,000 347,312 353,098 358,098 358,098 358,098 358,098 Havering 516,000 516,000 526,528 526,528 526,528 526,528 526,528 Hillingdon 428,000 428,000 430,850 435,196 442,586 442,586 442,586 Hounslow 425,000 430,260 431,300 452,850 452,850 452,850 452,850 Islington 407,000 417,417 424,094 482,918 482,918 482,918 482,918 K&C 748,000 748,160 752,579 752,579 752,579 752,579 752,579 Kingston 420,000 420,000 425,715 425,715 425,715 425,715 425,715 Lambeth 392,000 405,686 427,737 427,737 427,737 427,737 427,737 Lewisham 419,000 434,689 477,818 477,818 477,818 477,818 477,818 Merton 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 381,000 Newham 648,443 651,924 724,909 745,459 745,459 745,459 745,459 Redbridge 451,000 451,100 451,783 479,258 479,258 479,258 479,258 Richmond 320,000 319,485 319,485 319,485 319,485 319,485 319,485 Southwark 433,000 439,208 442,052 523,052 558,052 558,052 558,052 Sutton 342,000 342,000 342,000 342,000 342,000 342,000 342,000 Tower H 454,000 468,176 523,915 523,915 523,915 523,915 523,915 W. Forest 409,000 415,272 435,401 436,500 436,500 436,500 436,500 Wands. 515,000 521,410 595,467 595,467 595,467 595,467 595,467 Westmin. 1,959,000 1,970,767 1,974,826 1,974,826 1,974,826 1,974,826 1,974,826

Central 2,784,111 2,884,240 2,901,393 2,913,600 2,913,600 2,913,600 2,913,600 Inner LB 5,437,332 5,491,583 5,853,428 6,001,595 6,036,595 6,036,595 6,036,595 Outer LB 8,643,005 8,777,498 8,971,943 9,225,801 9,233,191 9,233,191 9,233,191 GLA area 16,864,448 17,153,321 17,726,764 18,140,996 18,183,386 18,183,386 18,183,386 Annulus 1,608,314 1,608,314 1,608,314 1,608,314 1,608,314 1,608,314 1,608,314 Total Internal 18,472,762 18,761,635 19,335,078 19,749,310 19,791,700 19,791,700 19,791,700 Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 20 Future Year Planning Data

3.8 B7.0 External Planning Data

3.8.1 Future year forecasts of external planning data were produced by applying TEMPRO proportional growth to the 2011 base external data described in Section 2.7. The version of TEMPRO data used was 6.2.

3.9 Summary of Overall Planning Data Totals

3.9.1 Table 14 shows the planning data totals by year for:

 the GLA area;

 the Internal area;

 the LTS South East area;

 Great Britain.

Table 14 Summary of Overall Planning Data by year Area 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041

Households GLA area 3,278,340 3,527,015 3,745,752 3,939,436 4,119,961 4,284,543 4,426,877 Internal area 3,637,281 3,900,547 4,133,864 4,338,175 4,529,967 4,705,861 4,859,527 South East 8,251,570 8,760,631 9,195,800 9,571,296 9,943,798 10,300,113 10,633,732 Great Britain 25,777,220 27,160,411 28,530,609 29,646,949 30,775,516 31,830,349 32,727,899

Population (including persons aged under 5) GLA area 8,217,475 8,779,641 9,203,293 9,543,718 9,839,366 10,110,876 10,354,773 Internal area 9,103,709 9,692,094 10,149,277 10,518,011 10,838,815 11,133,669 11,400,001 South East 20,317,084 21,342,895 22,212,016 22,985,667 23,668,899 24,298,456 24,878,932 Great Britain 61,269,964 63,520,675 65,788,418 67,650,274 69,373,514 70,890,731 72,336,968

Workers GLA area 3,706,901 3,955,279 4,133,195 4,262,707 4,396,107 4,527,971 4,611,093 Internal area 4,123,083 4,384,865 4,568,825 4,701,584 4,833,902 4,976,677 5,052,866 South East 9,698,892 10,207,950 10,462,994 10,662,040 10,810,699 11,013,091 11,172,312 Great Britain 28,690,817 29,763,859 30,385,443 30,887,500 31,251,694 31,831,724 32,420,513

Jobs GLA area 4,896,000 5,057,203 5,223,713 5,395,706 5,573,362 5,756,867 5,940,373 Internal area 5,357,835 5,546,531 5,724,723 5,905,461 6,089,374 6,283,765 6,478,379 South East 10,361,552 10,819,146 11,095,470 11,349,336 11,570,828 11,843,851 12,123,343 Great Britain 28,115,710 29,152,070 29,821,118 30,388,699 30,870,495 31,551,424 32,255,528 Sources: L:\London\lts\PROJECTS\C101470 - FC101730 TfL 90001(J) LTS Rebase\In\From.RTP\ 20140409 - Compiled Planning Data (from SHLAA v3 series)_v1.3_formatted_report.xlsx

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 21

Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data

Census Key Statistics Tables

All of the Census data that were used in the model update were obtained from the July 2003 release of Key Statistics at output area level. The Census data used relates to population, households, car ownership, and employment.

A mapping was carried out between the LTS zones (zn02) and the Census output areas, through looking at the centroid of each output area and assigning it to the LTS zone in which the centroid was located.

The tables and data fields used are listed below:

 Key Statistics KS105: household composition

 KS105b: all households  KS105c: One person households / Pensioner  KS105d: One person households / Other  KS105e: One family and no others / All pensioners  KS105f: One family and no other / Married couple households / no children  KS105g: One family and no other / Married couple households / with dependent children  KS105h: One family and no other / Married couple households / all children non dependent  KS105i: One family and no other / Cohabiting couple households / no children  KS105j: One family and no other / Cohabiting couple households / with dependent children  KS105k: One family and no other / Cohabiting couple households / all children non dependent  KS105l: One family and no other / lone parents households / with dependent children  KS105m: One family and no other / lone parents households / all children non dependent  KS105n: other households / with dependent children  KS105o: other households / all students  KS105p: other households / all pensioners  KS105q: other households / other.

 Key Statistics KS102: age structure

 KS102b: all people  KS102c: people aged 0-4  KS102d: people aged 5-7  KS102e: people aged 8-9  KS102f: people aged 10-14  KS102g: people aged 15  KS102h: people aged 16-17  KS102i: people aged 18-19

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 22 Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data

 KS102j: people aged 20-24  KS102k: people aged 25-29  KS102l: people aged 30-44  KS102m: people aged 45-59  KS102n: people aged 60-64  KS102o: people aged 65-74  KS102p: people aged 75-84  KS102q: people aged 85-89  KS102r: people aged 90 and over.

 Key Statistics KS608: occupation groups

 KS608b: all people aged 16-74 in employment  KS608c: managers and senior officials [1]  KS608d: professional occupations [1]  KS608e: associate professional and technical occupation [1]  KS608f: administrative and secretarial occupations [1]  KS608g: skilled trades occupations [2]  KS608h: personal service occupation [2]  KS608i: sales and customer service occupations [1]  KS608j: process, plant and machine operatives [2]  KS608k: elementary occupations [2]

[1] Classified as white collar workers for LTS Rebase [2] Classified as blue collar workers for LTS Rebase

 Key Statistics 17 KS404: cars or vans

 KS404b: all households  KS404c: households (number of cars or vans) / None  KS404d: households (number of cars or vans) / One  KS404e: households (number of cars or vans) / Two  KS404f: households (number of cars or vans) / Three  KS404g: households (number of cars or vans) / Four or more

 Key Statistics KS106: Limiting Long-term Illness

 KS106b: All households  KS106c: Households: No adults in employment :with dependent children*  KS106d: Households :No adults in employment: without dependent children*  KS106e: Households: With dependent children* : All ages  KS106f: Households: With dependent children*: Aged 0 -4  KS106g: Households: With one or more person with a limiting long-term illness

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 23 Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data

London Travel Demand Survey database (LTDS)

The LTDS was carried out across Greater London. Each individual within a household was asked about travel on the previous day. The information available from this database is therefore concerned with household types, individuals and trips.

The database was used to create 2011 trip rates and to supplement the Census data for disaggregations required by the PCOTE model but not available directly from the Census data. The required proportions were obtained at the borough level and applied directly to the Census values at the zonal level.

Data fields required by PCOTE

Household Split

The fields required for the household split (hhldsplt) for 2011 are given in Section 2.2 of the main document. The source of the data for each of these fields is given below: hh__ Census Key Statistics KS105b hh_schd Census Key Statistics (KS105g + KS105j + KS105l + KS105n) x (1 - factor), where factor is obtained from LTDS database and is proportion of households with dependent children that have no children aged 0 - 15 inclusive at the borough level hh_semp Census Key Statistics KS106b - KS106c - KS106d hh_padu Census Key Statistics (KS105g + KS105j) x factor 1 + (KS105l + KS105m) x factor 2 + (KS105m + KS105o + KS105p + KS105q) x factor 3 + (KS105h + KS105k) where factor 1, factor 2 and factor 3 are obtained from the LTDS database at borough level, and are the proportion of 3 adult households in each of these household types

1ade Census Key Statistics KS105d

1adeschd Census Key Statistics KS105l x factor where factor is obtained from LTDS database and is proportion of lone parent households with dependent children, with children aged 0 - 15

1adesemp Furness of employment by households type (hh_semp, hh__ - hh_semp, 1ade, 1oap, mase, moap) using LTDS database proportions of these household types (1 adult household that is employed etc) at borough level

1oap Census Key Statistics KS105c

1oapsemp Furness of employment by households type (hh_semp, hh__ - hh_semp, 1ade, 1oap, mase, moap) using LTDS database proportions of these household types (1 adult household that is employed etc) at borough level mase hh__ - 1ade - 1oap - moap

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 24 Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data maseschd hh_schd - 1adeschd masesemp Furness of employment by households type (hh_semp, hh__ - hh_semp, 1ade, 1oap, mase, moap) using LTDS database proportions of these household types (1 adult household that is employed etc) at borough level mase___S mase_1c1 + mase_1cm + mase_mc_ (see hhcobase below) masesemS mase___S multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type that are employed, from LTDS database masepadS hh_padu multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type with at least one car from LTDS database mase___1 mase_1c1 + mase_1cm (see hhcobase below) masepad1 hh_padu multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type with exactly one car from LTDS database moap Census Key Statistics KS105e + KS105p moapsemp Furness of employment by households type (hh_semp, hh__ - hh_semp, 1ade, 1oap, mase, moap) using LTDS database proportions of these household types (1 adult household that is employed etc) at borough level moap___S moap_1c1 + moap_1cm + moap_mc_ (see hhcobase below) moapsemS moap___S multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type that are employed, from LTDS database moappadS hh_padu multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type with at least one car, from LTDS database moap___1 moap_1c1 + moap_1cm (see hhcobase below) moappad1 hh_padu multiplied by borough proportion of households of this type with exactly one car, from LTDS database

Car Ownership Proportions

The fields required for the car ownership proportions at borough level (cowninpt) are given in Section 2.4 of the main document. The source of the data for each of these fields is given below: car1 Census Key Statistics (KS404b - KS404c) / KS404b car2 Census Key Statistics (KS404e + KS404f + KS404g) / (KS404d + KS404e + KS404f + KS404g) lic2 LTDS database proportions at the borough level

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 25 Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data

For the annulus counties, data were used from the output areas in the local authorities given below:

Kent Dartford, Sevenoaks

Surrey Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead, Tandridge, Woking

Herts Hertsmere, Three Rivers, Watford

Essex Brentwood, Epping Forrest, Thurrock

Bucks South Bucks, St Albans

Household Split and Car Ownership Cross Tabulation (hhcobase)

The fields required for the household split and car ownership cross tabulation at a zonal level for the LTS internal area are given in Section 2.5 of the main document.

To obtain the data a furnessing procedure was used. The four main household types were obtained at a zonal level for the household split categorisation described above (1ade, 1oap, mase, moap). The car ownership household split was obtained as follows at a zonal level:

0c_ households with no cars - Census Key Statistics KS404c

1c1 households with one car and one licence - Census Key Statistics KS404d x factor, where factor is obtained from LTDS database and is proportion of one car households with a single licence

1cm households with one car and 2+ licences – Census Key Statistics KS404d - 1cm mc_ households with 2+ cars – hh__ - 0c_ - 1c1 - 1cm

Factors for the cross tabulation of the four household types and the four car ownership types were obtained from the LTDS database at a borough level. These factors were then used as the basis for the furness, with the household breakdown and car ownership breakdown being used as the row and column totals for each zone.

Detailed Population Data

The person breakdown required at zonal level for the LTS internal area is given in Section 2.6 of the main document. This breakdown is required for each of the twelve household and car ownership tabulations described in the preceding section for the base year (persbase.2011.chld, persbase.2011.waww, persbase.2011.wawb, persbase.2011.wane, persbase.2011.pens).

These values were obtained using a furnessing procedure. The person breakdown split by the four main household types (1ade, 1oap, mase, moap), and an estimate of the person breakdown split by the car ownership categories was obtained.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 26 Appendix A Calculation of Detailed Data

The person breakdown split by the four main household types by zone was obtained as follows:

Chld it was assumed that there were no children living in 1oap and moap households. 1adeschd was multiplied by the average number of children in LTDS database one parent families, and this number subtracted from the total number of children to obtain chld1ade and chldmase waww a furness procedure was carried out using white workers, blue workers and unemployed from the ipdinput.2011 file and 1ade and (waww + wawb + wane - 1ade) for people in 1ade and mase households, and LTDS database borough proportions wawb as for waww wane as for waww pens 1oap, 2 x moap, and pens - 1oap - 2 x moap for pensioners in mase households

Small adjustments were carried out in a few places, to remove negative numbers of people in certain categories in a few zones.

The numbers of people in the car ownership categories were obtained using the total numbers of people in the four household categories (calculated from the person breakdown split by the four main household types described above), multiplied by proportions obtained from hhcobase to give an estimate of the number of people with no cars, 1 car 1 licence etc.

These two sets of data were then furnessed at the zonal level, using borough level proportions obtained from the LTDS household database.

External Planning Data

Census data for the external area was extracted as follows populatn KS102b: all people workers KS608b: all people aged 16 to 74 in employment hholds KS404b: all households cars KS404h: all cars

This was scaled to match mid-year estimates of population for the LTS South East area and Great Britain as a whole – details of this are given in Section 2.7 of the main document.

TN43 LTS B7 Planning Data Page 27 Appendix B Thamesmead-Woolwich tram test Introduction

The Option Assessment Report (Long List) explored a number of potential variants of a cross-river tram option. It concluded that option Tram 2d with branches to Barking, Abbey Wood and Woolwich should be taken forward into the interim list. The section of tram operating between Thamesmead and Woolwich was highlighted as of particular benefit. This branch would provide a fast and frequent connection to Woolwich, providing access to Crossrail but also to a wider range of interchange opportunities than Abbey Wood, and to the numerous town centre facilities. The tram route could be used to unlock development land at Tamesis Point and serve the existing residential areas of Thamesmead West that currently have very poor public transport connectivity. One advantage of this option is that the Thamesmead to Woolwich section of tram could be delivered to a more ambitious timescale than those elements dependent on the river crossing since all of the necessary planning decisions are within the control of the boroughs and TfL. Another is that is aligns with ideas being considered by Peabody for a ‘connected crescent’ to improve transport links between Thamesmead and Crossrail at Woolwich, linking a number of large residential development sites to Crossrail and the other travel options and amenities in Woolwich. The rationale for the tests in this appendix is therefore to understand the potential to spur development in Thamesmead through provision of new public transport on the south side of the river in advance of delivery of the river crossing. Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs)

The provision of a tram linking Thamesmead to Woolwich would improve the PTAL values of Thamesmead West, the Tamesis Point development site and Thamesmead town centre. Based on the findings shown in Figure 4-9, it is clear that the provision of a tram service in combination with a package of bus enhancements would likely be sufficient to create a new PTAL 4 hub in Thamesmead town centre and a PTAL 3 corridor through Thamesmead West to Plumstead. Note that the exact PTAL scores could differ from Figure 4-9 since they depend on the classification of the tram services as additional branches or not. However, the overall finding is that within a localised area of interest in Thamesmead, the Thamesmead-Woolwich tram could generate sufficient improvements in PTAL scores to enable the development of medium-density housing with reduced car dependence. Access to jobs

The following figures show the incremental changes in job connectivity resulting from the Thamesmead to Woolwich tram and the full Tram 2d option. Figure C 1 shows the change in jobs within 75 generalised time as a result of the Thamesmead to Woolwich tram (with no cross-river links). There are significant but localised benefits in terms of improved access to jobs within Thamesmead.

Figure C 1: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Thamesmead-Woolwich tram vs Ref)

Figure C 2 shows the equivalent change with Tram 2d. This option includes the cross-river links and therefore also the Indicative bus network. The combination of the cross-river connectivity and the fast link to Woolwich has a transformative effect on access to jobs from Thamesmead. Figure C 2: Change in jobs within 75 mins generalised time (Tram 2d vs Ref)

In Table C 1, these effects are summarised for several different parts of Thamesmead. In the 2031 Reference Case, all of these areas are expected to have extremely poor connectivity to jobs. Using the 75 minute generalised time threshold, the Thamesmead-Woolwich tram delivers a significant increase in access to jobs for most of Thamesmead, although most parts remain lower than nearby areas such as Plumstead (150-200k jobs in 75 minutes). The delivery of the full Tram 2d option delivers a more substantial increase in access to jobs, putting all of Thamesmead on a par with neighbouring areas which are served by national rail services. Table C 1: Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time by public transport from selected origins (000s) Origin area 2031 Reference Woolwich- Tram 2d Case Thamesmead tram Thamesmead West 22 88 183 Tamesis Point 42 74 163 Thamesmead Central 60 95 131 Carlyle Road 106 171 348

Thamesmead Travel Options Pie Analysis

Figure C 3 shows the TOP map for Thamesmead in 2031 with the Woolwich-Thamesmead tram and no additional changes to the transport network. The total number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes remains below 600,000, as this largely driven by car accessibility. However, 44% of these jobs can now be accessed by public transport, increasing the number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes from 70,000 in the 2031 Reference Case to 260,000 with the tram. The fast journey time to Woolwich Arsenal provides access to all of the Royals Docks, all of Canary Wharf and even Whitechapel within 45 minutes journey time. In other words, the Thamesmead-Woolwich tram comes very close to bringing jobs in central London to within 45 minutes of Thamesmead.

Figure C 3: Thamesmead TOP (2031 Woolwich tram, AM peak)

Conclusion

It is evident from evidence presented that the provision of a Woolwich-Thamesmead tram with some associated bus network enhancements would be sufficient to enable medium- density residential development in Thamesmead in advance of a Gallions Reach crossing. In terms of access to employment for Thamesmead residents, and the attractiveness of it as a location for potential new residents, access to central London employment would always require interchange from tram to Crossrail at Woolwich and hence access to jobs measured in generalised time is less than residential communities with a direct rail link to a central London terminus. On the other hand, the TOP analysis demonstrates that Thamesmead would offer commuters access by public transport to clusters of employment in the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and central London. If Whitechapel falls within 45 minutes journey time by Crossrail, much of the Central Activities Zone can be reached within a 1-hour commute, and as such the Thamesmead-Woolwich tram would likely be a sufficient catalyst to unlock residential growth in the short-term.