Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Overview This document provides a statement of the general nature and effect of the proposed scheme set out in the Variation Order made by Transport for (TfL) for a western extension to the central London congestion charging zone. It begins by summarising the background to the proposed western extension and then describes its key features and likely effects. The Variation Order is subject to public consultation and to a decision by the Mayor on whether to confirm it, with or without modifications. If the Variation Order is confirmed, TfL would also bring forward measures to accommodate additional bus patronage and changes in the pattern of traffic around the boundary of the proposed extension. Potential bus service enhancements and traffic management measures to accompany the proposed scheme are described in this document along with other planned transport improvements in this part of London.

1 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

2 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

1. Background 1.1 The central London congestion charging scheme was introduced in February 2003 in line with the proposal set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy published in July 2001. 1.2 In May 2003, as the benefits of the central London congestion charging scheme became apparent, the Mayor asked TfL to explore the possibilities for extending the benefits of congestion charging to other areas of central London suffering from all-day traffic congestion. 1.3 TfL looked at possible geographical extensions to the north, east, south and west of the existing central London congestion charging zone. Following initial analysis, the area to the west of the current central London congestion charging zone, covering most of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and parts of the , was identified as the area most appropriate for an extension of the existing scheme. This was considered a practical and workable extension to the current scheme as: • the area suffers from severe all day traffic congestion; • it could be operated using the same technology and systems as the current central London zone; • the area is well served by public transport; and • there are suitable diversion routes for drivers wishing to avoid the zone. 1.4 TfL proposed that a western extension be broadly bounded by Harrow Road, Scrubs Lane, the West Cross Route, the Earl’s Court One Way System and Chelsea Embankment and operate in a similar way to the current central London congestion charging scheme with a daily charge of £8 (with discounts for fleet vehicles and monthly or annual payments). 1.5 In October 2003, the Mayor delegated to TfL responsibility for preparing a limited Transport Strategy Revision, which would allow for a possible westward extension of the central London congestion charging zone. 1.6 TfL first carried out an informal engagement with key stakeholders on broad proposals for a western extension. TfL then undertook a consultation with the London Assembly and the Greater London Authority (GLA) Functional Bodies on a draft Revision to the Transport Strategy. This was followed by public and stakeholder consultation on a draft Transport Strategy Revision in February 2004. 1.7 After considering the consultation responses and TfL's report on the consultation, the Mayor decided to publish his Transport Strategy Revision – with modifications from the draft Revision – on 11 August 2004. 1.8 The Transport Strategy Revision enables a western extension to be developed. The Revision stated that TfL would continue to investigate the potential for and impacts of an extended central London scheme and that, subject to the outcome of these investigations and the availability of funding, TfL would make a Variation Order for an extended scheme.

3 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

1.9 However, before making an Order and in response to the Transport Strategy Revision consultation, TfL were asked by the Mayor specifically to consider and to discuss informally with the ten directly affected London boroughs the following issues: • possible alternative locations of the northern and western boundaries of an extended charging zone; • possible extensions to the residents’ discount zone to certain areas outside the congestion charging zone where the particular circumstances justify it; • ‘free’ through routes on the elevated section of the A40 (Westway) and the western part of the Inner Ring Road; and • the proposed hours of operation. 1.10 TfL also looked at the possibility of two residents’ discount zones as opposed to one, and at alternative charge levels. 1.11 TfL prepared a draft Variation Order, which set out the detail of a preferred scheme, based on its further investigations and informal discussions with the boroughs. 1.12 In January 2005, TfL undertook preliminary consultation with key stakeholders on the draft Variation Order to further assist TfL in refining the details of the design of the scheme and its operation, prior to public consultation. It ensured that the proposals are coherent, take account of any local constraints, are adequately formulated and are properly described in the Variation Order made by TfL for a western extension. 1.13 As a result of responses to the preliminary consultation, several adjustments were made to the draft Variation Order. These features of the proposed western extension are described in more detail in Section 2 but in summary are: • a clause bringing forward to late 2005 the implementation of an extended residents’ discount zone to the areas between the inner and outer arms of the boundary route for the existing charging zone; • an amendment to the proposed boundary to be redrawn broadly along Praed Street and Eastbourne Terrace, allowing the existing signed route for traffic travelling northwards on the Inner Ring Road to the A40 (Westway) to be charge-free, and also charge-free access to Station (the residents’ discount would still apply in this area); and • an amendment such that no charge would apply on the roads in the area bounded by Bressenden Place, Victoria Street and Grosvenor Gardens. 1.14 TfL is satisfied that the scheme described in the Variation Order is in conformity with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision and that the scheme would facilitate the achievement of the Transport Strategy’s priorities, policies and proposals. 1.15 Should the Mayor decide to confirm the Variation Order (with or without modifications), the earliest possible date for implementation of a western extension to the central London congestion charging scheme would be early 2007.

4 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

2. The key features of the proposed scheme 2.1 As a result of TfL’s continued investigations, informal engagement with the ten directly affected London Boroughs and preliminary consultation with key stakeholders, a number of refinements are proposed to the indicative scheme configuration that was published in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision. The expected key features of an extension to the central London scheme are set out in the Variation Order and are as follows. Where would charges apply? 2.2 It is proposed that the existing central London congestion charging zone be extended to include the area to the west, broadly bounded by Harrow Road, the West Cross Route, the Earl’s Court One Way System and Chelsea Embankment. It is proposed that there would not be a charge for using these boundary routes, the elevated section of the A40 (Westway) or the western part of the Inner Ring Road. The map at the end of this document illustrates these proposed arrangements. Northern boundary 2.3 The northern boundary would be located broadly along Harrow Road with a number of deviations proposed in response to representations received during previous consultation exercises. These alterations allow uncharged access to services and roads north of the Grand Union Canal. In particular, they would provide uncharged access from the north of Harrow Road to a major supermarket off Ladbroke Grove and the Westminster Academy. The diversionary route for through traffic would remain the Harrow Road and all residents inside the boundary route would receive the residents’ discount. 2.4 Additionally, it is proposed that Paddington Station and St. Mary’s Hospital be excluded from the proposed western extension with the proposed boundary along Eastbourne Terrace and Praed Street. This would allow charge-free access to and from the A40 via the slip roads to the north-west of the area. Again, the diversionary route for through traffic would remain the Harrow Road and all residents inside the boundary route would receive the residents’ discount. 2.5 TfL had previously considered the possibility of using the A40 (Westway) as the charging zone boundary. However, this could have created severance issues for residents in North Kensington, many of whom are in lower-income households and many of whom make car trips into the area south of the A40 within the proposed extension zone. Further difficulties would arise in the use of the A40 as a charging zone boundary since it is elevated and would not provide a road-based diversionary route and there is not a suitable parallel route at ground level. Western boundary 2.6 It is proposed that the western boundary of the enlarged charging zone would be formed by the inner (southbound) arm of the Earl’s Court One Way System (Earl’s Court Road), as set out in the Transport Strategy Revision.

5 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

2.7 A boundary at the West London Railway Line (which forms the borough boundary between The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham) was considered. However, TfL remains of the view that road-based diversionary routes are an important feature of the proposed extended congestion charging zone. Without a diversionary route at the boundary, some drivers may make hazardous manoeuvres to avoid entering the zone. A boundary at the West London Railway Line would also be expected to give rise to representations against penalties incurred for inadvertently entering the proposed charging zone. Even if the traffic encountering the proposed charging zone boundary and wishing to divert was a minority of the total flow, the numbers would be significant. 2.8 Furthermore, TfL’s traffic studies show that a West London Railway Line boundary would result in increased traffic on certain local roads in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham; and overall higher traffic levels than with a boundary on the Earl’s Court One Way System, although traffic conditions would still be improved compared with current conditions. 2.9 A further alternative considered was to convert the Earl’s Court One Way System into two way operation using the outer (northbound) arm as the boundary. TfL has carried out initial investigations and modelling and, although this option provides comparable overall traffic benefits to those of the preferred boundary, it has significant local drawbacks. In particular, to accommodate revised traffic patterns, new gyratory systems would probably be needed at two locations and some parking would be displaced. Southern boundary 2.10 It is proposed that the southern boundary of the western extension would be formed by Chelsea Embankment and Grosvenor Road. Inclusion of this route inside the zone (i.e. a charging zone boundary at the River Thames) was analysed but rejected due to the lack of a suitable diversionary route for through traffic; and the resulting potential for traffic increasing on roads south of the Thames into the London Borough of Wandsworth. ‘Free’ through routes 2.11 It is proposed that the elevated section of the A40 (Westway) and the western part of the Inner Ring Road (, Park Lane, Grosvenor Place and Vauxhall Bridge Road) would be ‘charge-free’ through routes. The size and shape of the proposed enlarged zone would mean that, without charge-free passage on these routes, lengthy diversions would be necessary for some through traffic. Residents’ discount zone 2.12 In the Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision, TfL was asked to consider giving the residents’ discount to residents outside the charging zone where particular circumstances justify it. Based on further analysis of socio-economic and travel data and information received in respect of the existing zone as well as for the proposed extension, TfL is proposing a general revision to the definition of the residents’ discount zone as well as identifying some additional special areas in which to offer the discount.

6 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

General definition of the residents’ discount zone 2.13 It is proposed that, if a western extension were implemented, the residents’ discount zone for the enlarged scheme would be extended to the outer arm of the diversionary route in cases where this differs from the location of the charging zone boundary. 2.14 The proposal is based on TfL’s consideration of severance issues faced by residents in these areas outside the charging zone boundary. Representations relating to parking and severance issues have been made to TfL by residents living in locations between the charging zone and the associated diversionary route of the existing scheme, as well as those affected by the proposed extension; for example, those living between the inner and outer arms of one way systems on the boundary route. As such, residents living between the inner (southbound) and outer (northbound) arms of the Earl’s Court One Way System would be eligible for the residents’ discount, as well as those residents who live between the proposed charging zone boundary south of Harrow Road and Harrow Road itself, and the diversion route at the north of the proposed extension. 2.15 There are six further locations around the existing central London congestion charging zone boundary where this proposal would also apply: • Kings Cross one way system • The Angel one way system • Aldgate Gyratory • Vauxhall Cross • Old Marylebone Road • Victoria Transport Interchange • The area enclosed by Bressenden Place, Lower Grosvenor Place, Grosvenor Gardens and Victoria Street. 2.16 The proposed adjustment to the residents’ discount zone would be compatible with (and would bring into line) several other locations on the existing central zone boundary where the residents’ discount zone has already been extended beyond the charging zone boundary so that residents can access on-street parking. 2.17 It is proposed that the residents’ discount for those areas around the central zone would be implemented in advance of any western extension on 5 December 2005. Special extensions to the residents’ discount zone 2.18 In addition, it is proposed that there be three further extensions to the residents’ discount zone to alleviate potential parking and severance issues.

7 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

2.19 The first such area applies to those residents between Grosvenor Road and the River Thames. The second area is where houseboats are moored on the Thames just west of Battersea Bridge. In both of these cases, the designated residents’ parking is inside the area of the proposed charging zone and there are no practical alternative parking arrangements for these residents outside the zone. Furthermore, these residents are bounded by the River Thames, a physical barrier to alternative movements. 2.20 The third area proposed for an extended residents’ discount zone is the area between the outer (northbound) arm of the Earl’s Court One Way System and the West London Railway Line. It has been argued that residents in this area would suffer from community severance from essential local services should they need to pay the charge to enter the zone. A large number of representations were received on this matter during the public consultation on the draft Transport Strategy Revision. Furthermore, TfL’s analysis of travel data for the area shows a propensity for residents in this area to make car trips to destinations within the proposed extension zone. 2.21 A large number of residents of the Earl’s Court area made representations to TfL expressing concern about being isolated between the proposed charging zone boundary to the east and the physical 'boundary' of the West London Railway Line to the west, which is seen as a barrier to movement. This is similar to the physical barrier created by the River Thames at the above two areas. One residents’ discount zone 2.22 To ensure ease of chargepayer understanding and practicable implementation, it is proposed that there be one residents’ discount zone covering both the existing central zone and the area of the proposed western extension. 2.23 Although a single residents’ discount zone would have lower decongestion benefits than a two-zone scheme (discussed below), a two-zone residents’ discount structure would take significantly longer to implement and would substantially increase the cost of the scheme due to the need for extensive re-engineering of the charging system. 2.24 Taking into account the additional cost of a two-zone scheme, the fact that the benefits from charging in the western area would be deferred because of the longer implementation timetable and the added complexity for making payments and signing the zones, TfL considers that a single residents’ discount zone is the preferable solution. When would charges apply? 2.25 It is proposed that, should the charging zone be extended, the finish time for charging within the enlarged zone be brought forward to 6.00pm. This change is in response to representations, largely from business representatives, received during the consultation on the draft Transport Strategy Revision and is proposed to assist the evening economy within the enlarged zone. 2.26 As with the existing congestion charging scheme, there would be no charge on public holidays or on the days between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.

8 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

What charges would apply? 2.27 It is proposed that the congestion charge for the extended scheme would be the same as for the existing central zone and that there would be only one charge for the whole combined area. 2.28 The charge (including discounts and exemptions) is kept under review to identify whether any adjustments are needed to maintain the objective of reducing congestion or to respond to changes in circumstances. 2.29 On 31 March 2005 the Mayor confirmed a Variation of the existing Scheme Order to increase the daily congestion charge from £5 to £8 (£7 for vehicles registered on the fleet scheme). This is due to come into effect on 4 July 2005. 2.30 The charge increase will be accompanied by a package of measures to improve services for chargepayers, including a discount of three days for monthly payments (20 days) and a discount of 40 days for annual payments (252 days); together with reductions in the cost of various administration charges. Changes to TfL’s fleet schemes are also being introduced to assist businesses. It will be possible to register cars to ‘automated fleet scheme’ accounts from May 2005, and the threshold for opening a fleet account has been reduced from 25 vehicles to 10. 2.31 These changes were intended to: • maintain and build upon the benefits of the congestion charging scheme; • support new investment on measures to further reduce traffic congestion across London; • support new investment in meeting the wider objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; and • improve services for charge payers. 2.32 As with the existing congestion charging scheme, failure to pay the charge would result in potential liability for a penalty charge. How would an extended scheme work? 2.33 An extended scheme would operate broadly in the same manner as the existing scheme; it would use similar traffic signs and road markings, and similar camera and number plate recognition technology. The payment options would be the same as for the existing central zone. 2.34 It is proposed that all discounts and exemptions would be in line with those prevailing for the central London scheme at the time of the implementation of a western extension, with a 90% discount from the congestion charge for all residents in the defined discount zone.

9 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

2.35 The scheme would be enforced in the same way as the existing scheme. The registered keeper of any vehicle which has been identified within the extended zone without the appropriate congestion charge having been paid, would be liable to a penalty charge. This would be discounted to 50% for payment made within 14 days. 2.36 TfL is currently investigating the potential of new technologies, such as satellite positioning systems, as well as microwave and infrared tag and beacon systems, and mobile phone systems to improve the effectiveness of the existing central London congestion charging scheme and for use in possible future developments of the scheme. However, such technologies are untried in dense urban areas, such as central London and, until they have been proven, the current technology remains the best available for the existing scheme and the proposed western extension.

10 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

3. Complementary transport measures 3.1 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision proposes that TfL and the London Boroughs would introduce measures necessary to support a western extension of the congestion charging zone. 3.2 In line with this, a number of public transport and traffic management improvements are planned in conjunction with the proposed western extension of the congestion charging scheme. While by and large they are being implemented independently of the proposed extension, they would support better integrated and alternative travel options, and help to accommodate changed traffic patterns, as necessary, on roads in and around the extended charging zone. Furthermore, together with congestion charging, they would help facilitate the achievement of the policies set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. London Buses 3.3 If a western extension Variation Order were confirmed by the Mayor, London Buses would expand and enhance the bus network in and around the western extension zone to provide extra capacity to cater for the projected increase in bus patronage. 3.4 Many bus corridors into the area of the proposed extension are expected to experience increased passenger demand if an extension to the congestion charging scheme is implemented. Where this requires extra service provision, it could be provided by a combination of frequency enhancements, larger buses (where appropriate) or the introduction of new routes. 3.5 London Buses has already delivered many improvements to bus services in and around the extension area, including new routes and enhancements to peak, off-peak, evening and night services. Quality Incentive Contracts and the existing central London congestion charging scheme have also led to a further significant improvement in quality and reliability. 3.6 The London Bus Priority Partnership aims to make the experience of travelling by bus more attractive to more people by delivering a real change to the quality of bus priority on key bus routes. A total of 70 routes across London are being upgraded through measures such as new bus lanes and improvements to bus stops. 3.7 Under the Bus Priority Partnership scheme, improvements to 26 key bus routes within the area of the proposed western extension, or within two kilometres of the proposed boundary, are scheduled for completion by autumn 2005. Six of these routes run through Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, 20 through City of Westminster, 11 through London Borough of Brent and 12 through London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. Should the proposed western extension be progressed, TfL’s Bus Priority team would consider how elements of their programme could be adjusted to complement the scheme further. 3.8 An overview of how the bus network may develop in response to the introduction of the charge and how travel demand into the zone would change from the west, east, north and south is presented below.

11 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

3.9 The existing network offers many high frequency routes providing a large number of direct links to from and within the area of the proposed extension. There are a number of east-west routes linking the area with the West End and the suburbs. There are also north-south routes into the zone, and other bus services provide links from the zone to south of the river. 3.10 Overall, the highest changes in bus passenger numbers are forecast in the morning peak and planning has been undertaken to accommodate this growth. As bus frequencies are set to cater for the maximum demand in the busiest hour, busiest direction, there can be spare capacity in the other direction. At a number of entry points the extra demand generated by the proposed western extension would use this spare capacity. 3.11 However, some new capacity would be necessary on the network. Frequency increases are likely to be needed on east-west routes, and some extensions of existing routes are being considered to improve connections to the west. There may be new links introduced from the north of the zone and from the south, frequency enhancements and potential new links are being investigated. 3.12 The development of these network enhancements would be pursued as an integrated part of London Buses’ ongoing network planning process. West: Kings Road, Fulham Road, Old Brompton Road, Cromwell Road, Kensington High Street, Shepherd’s Bush and North Pole Road 3.13 This area currently has some spare capacity on a number of routes crossing into the proposed extension, as this is the current contra-peak direction. Nevertheless this would not be sufficient to cater for extra demand arising from the proposed extension and enhancements to bus provision to the west of the area would be required. East: Sussex Gardens, Marble Arch, Knightsbridge, Buckingham Palace Road 3.14 The bus network already offers numerous possibilities of travelling between these two areas and again there is some spare capacity crossing into the western area, as this is the current contra-peak direction. North: Ladbroke Grove, Great Western Road, Porchester Road 3.15 Generally extra demand generated into the area of the proposed western extension from the north would be in the current peak direction. Therefore new trips from this area would require increases in service provision. This may enable the introduction of new and/or extended routes from the north into the western extension. In addition increases in frequency on some routes are likely to be needed. South: Grosvenor Road, Bessborough Street, Chelsea Bridge, Royal Hospital Road and Battersea Bridge 3.16 There is limited spare capacity on the relevant routes in this sector as it is the busiest direction in morning peak. It is therefore likely that frequency enhancements would be required.

12 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

London Underground 3.17 Enhancements are planned to the following Underground stations within the proposed area of the western extension to the charging zone: • eight stations in Kensington and Chelsea are due to be refurbished or modernised by 2011. Work is due by 2006 at Holland Park, Knightsbridge, Ladbroke Grove and Notting Hill Gate; • nine stations in Westminster are due to be refurbished or modernised by 2012. Work is due by 2006 at Bayswater, Lancaster Gate and Marble Arch; • Latimer Road in Hammersmith and Fulham is due to be refurbished by 2010. 3.18 The Central Line, which runs through the area of the proposed western extension, has been undergoing an upgrade over the last 10 years. The rolling stock, track, signals and control equipment have been comprehensively upgraded. The latest phase of the Central Line Project is to realise the benefit of the infrastructure improvements by introducing new timetables that exploit the faster running of the new rolling stock and the larger fleet of trains that will be available. National Rail 3.19 The West London Railway Line currently serves south-west Kensington and Chelsea, with stations at West Brompton and Kensington Olympia. New stations at Shepherd’s Bush and Chelsea Harbour (Imperial Wharf) are programmed to be complete by July 2005. Two trains an hour will stop at these new stations, with additional peak services to be provided. 3.20 The North London Line serves the area west of the proposed extension (at Acton and Gunnersbury), Willesden Junction (at the north-west edge of the extension) and Camden, Highbury and Islington and Hackney north of the existing congestion charging zone. Customer information and security are scheduled to be improved at its stations between 2005 and 2008. Cycling 3.21 More than 300,000 trips per day are made by bicycle within Greater London. There was an increase in cycling of 23% in London between May/June 2003 and May/June 2004 and cycle casualties are down 31% on the 1994-98 average. Surveys show that 25% of users of new cycling facilities transferred from car. 3.22 The Local Cycle Network Plus is a 900km network of routes for cyclists covering the whole of London. By the end of 2005/6, additions or improvements to six Network Plus routes within the area of the proposed western extension will have been completed. Network Plus is to be entirely upgraded by 2010. 3.23 TfL contributes money to various borough-led schemes through the Borough Partnerships programme and, in 2004/5 and 2005/6, is set to supply funds for cycle training and cycle parking schemes within the area of the proposed western extension to a value of over £250,000.

13 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

3.24 TfL’s Area Cycling team will implement further schemes to improve cycling facilities on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) of strategic roads. Walking 3.25 More than 5.5 million walking trips are made every day within Greater London. Pedestrian casualties are down 23% on the 1994-98 average and walking has increased in the central London area by 18% since the 1990s. Over 100 schemes every year are delivered by TfL’s Area Walking team specifically to help pedestrians. On average, these facilitate an 8% increase in walkers at scheme locations. 3.26 In 2004/5 and 2005/6, TfL is programmed to fund walking schemes around Notting Hill Gate and Notting Hill station through the Borough Partnerships programme to a value of over £150,000. Fares and information 3.27 New fare and ticketing initiatives are improving public transport value and convenience. The introduction of Oyster smartcards simplifies purchasing and access to package deals. Flat rate bus pass season tickets (7 day, monthly or annual) were introduced in January 2004. Monthly and longer adult bus pass and Travelcard season tickets sold by TfL outlets are now all in Oyster format, with weekly tickets optionally available on Oyster cards. It is anticipated that child season tickets will be available in Oyster format during 2005. 3.28 Free travel on buses for all under 16s will be in place by September 2005 and free bus travel for under 18s in full-time education is expected to have been introduced by September 2006. The earliest a western extension could be introduced is in 2007. 3.29 Zonal fares, valid for through trips on National Rail and , have been agreed with the majority of train operating companies and they will be introduced early in 2005. It is also anticipated that the train operating companies will agree to the extension of Oyster payment for their London services – for implementation in 2006. 3.30 Journey planning and information services, such as the multi-modal Journey Planner and other real-time information delivered to PCs and mobile phones via the internet, e-mail, WAP and text message have already been introduced. National Rail interchange maps have been updated and bus stop information improvements include stop-specific information maps with details of ticketing sources as well as journey links and local information. 3.31 Partnerships are under development with Hospital Trusts to promote public transport options. Participating hospitals within the proposed extension area are Chelsea and Westminster, Royal Marsden, Royal Brompton and St Mary’s. Safety and Security 3.32 The Transport Operational Command Unit deploys teams to police 20 key corridors covering 26 bus routes. These teams deter crime and anti social behaviour on buses, at bus stops and bus garages and on roads along the agreed bus routes with a specific focus on crime and congestion hotspots within these corridors.

14 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

3.33 In 2004/5 the unit made over 5,926 arrests, had over 1,906 vehicles removed and issued over 105,186 tickets. Traffic Management 3.34 TfL will continue to work with the London boroughs to support local schemes and initiatives through the Borough Spending Plan process. Potential schemes that would be required to complement an extension of the charging zone may be identified by affected boroughs and funding applied for. Schemes are likely to include Controlled Parking Zones to help prevent inappropriate parking, or traffic management schemes to reflect new traffic patterns. 3.35 It is expected that increases in orbiting traffic on the proposed extension boundary roads would be largely managed by alteration to traffic signals, as was demonstrated successfully on the central zone scheme boundary roads. This would be achieved using a combination of adjustments to signal timings and conversion of fixed-time signals to dynamic control. Most of the proposed boundary route is part of the network of main roads under the direct control of TfL. When implementing the proposed western extension and associated traffic management measures, TfL would take account of the duties of other highway authorities, as required under the Traffic Management Act 2004. 3.36 Other proposals that could affect a western extension, or be affected by the introduction of an extension include: • a major retail development at White City, due for completion in 2007; • a major office development at Paddington, due for completion in 2007; • improvements to Victoria Transport Interchange (the final shape of the scheme and the timetable for implementation are still under discussion); • partial pedestrianisation of Sloane Square – a western extension could assist the development of these proposals as it would reduce traffic levels in the Sloane Square area, making it easier to cope with revised traffic patterns; and • a scheme being developed to give higher priority to pedestrians on Exhibition Road – reduced traffic levels resulting from the proposed western extension could enhance the benefits of this scheme. 3.37 Wider traffic management improvements include: • more effective control of traffic through real time traffic management systems controlled by London’s Traffic Control Centre; • more effective enforcement of parking and loading restrictions on all main roads and bus routes throughout Greater London, to ensure traffic flows reliably; • improved bus lane enforcement cameras for all of London’s bus lanes; • improved information on streetworks and on network performance available on the internet; • more effective co-ordination and management of streetworks through the Director of Traffic Management.

15 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

4. Broad effects of the proposed scheme 4.1 The introduction of a western extension to the central London congestion charging zone would have various effects on traffic patterns and public transport within the enlarged zone and in the area around it. An extension would also impact on the traffic related economic benefits produced by the congestion charging scheme as well as the scheme’s net revenues. The proposals could affect households and businesses within and around the enlarged zone and it is possible that an extension could have an effect on the environment. The nature and scale of these effects are outlined below. 4.2 Subsequently, section 5 outlines a series of specific studies that TfL has commissioned to examine the range of potential impacts of the proposed western extension. 4.3 TfL has published a document entitled Supplementary Information on the Traffic and Transport Effects of the Proposed Western Extension to the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme, which sets out more detailed information on the projected traffic and transport impacts of the proposed western extension. This is available from the Transport for London website at www.tfl.gov.uk. Making the appropriate comparisons 4.4 When describing the projected effects of the proposed western extension relevant comparisons need to be drawn. Although the charge is due to rise from £5 to £8 on 4 July 2005, in these consultation documents figures relating to expected traffic and congestion levels are given in comparison to present conditions – an enlarged zone with an £8 charge is compared to the existing central London congestion charging scheme with a £5 charge. 4.5 Strictly speaking, a comparison of the traffic impacts of an enlarged scheme (£8 charge) with those for the existing central London scheme under a £5 charge, is a combination of the impact of the charge increase and the proposed western extension. In practice, the differences in magnitude between these two comparisons are limited, especially when considering effects within the proposed extension area. This is because the increased charge in the existing central zone will have a relatively small impact on traffic conditions within the western extension area. 4.6 However, when calculating expected revenues and traffic related economic benefits expected from the proposed extension, it is more appropriate to use the stricter comparison and to compare projected figures to conditions following the charge increase – an enlarged zone with an £8 charge compared to an £8 charge for the existing central London zone. 4.7 A further issue relating to these comparisons is that it is proposed that the introduction of a western extension would be accompanied by a reduction of the charging hours to 6.00pm for the enlarged zone. If the 6.00pm finish to charging hours is compared with a 6.30pm finish time, it results in a reduction in overall traffic benefits in the enlarged zone, including the existing central zone scheme, of 3-5%. 4.8 Further explanation of these comparisons is given in the Supplementary Information document at www.tfl.gov.uk.

16 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Traffic and transport effects Traffic 4.9 A proportion of existing car drivers to the western extension area would be expected to transfer to public transport or to other modes, such as walking or cycling. Others would select different routes, travel at different times or make less frequent journeys to the extension area. For commercial vehicles, some through trips would avoid the extension area; some trips would be consolidated. 4.10 TfL estimate that an £8 charge would result in roundly 13-17% fewer vehicles with four or more wheels entering a western extension zone. For comparison, the existing charging zone has experienced an 18% reduction in vehicles entering the zone under a £5 charge. This would result in congestion, or traffic delays, inside the western extension being reduced by 15-20%. 4.11 A western extension would cause an increase in traffic levels in the existing central zone over prevailing levels for two reasons. First, traffic currently travelling around the existing congestion charging zone and terminating within the proposed extension area may revert to using the existing zone, as the drivers would have to pay the charge anyway. Second, residents of the proposed western extension zone becoming eligible for a discount to enter the enlarged zone would add further to circulating traffic in the existing charging zone. The combined effect would increase the intensity of congestion in the existing charging zone: this would mean that traffic delays were 27-31% reduced compared with conditions before the existing central London congestion charging scheme was introduced; rather than the 30% reduction that has been achieved by the scheme. 4.12 The rest of inner London (defined by the North and South Circular Roads and excluding the enlarged zone) would be expected to experience a reduction in congestion of 4-7% as a result of the proposed western extension. 4.13 While some localised increases in traffic levels would be expected on the roads forming the boundary to an extension (as with the existing scheme), the effects of these increases would be mitigated by making appropriate alterations to traffic signal timings. 4.14 TfL’s assessment indicates that traffic levels would fall slightly on the A40 and be largely unchanged on the western section of the Inner Ring Road. Public transport 4.15 There would be an increase in travel by public transport to the area of an extension. TfL estimates that there could be an extra 15,000 to 20,000 passengers per charging day entering the proposed western extension. Around a third of these additional passengers would arrive in the three hour morning peak period 7.00am to 10.00am. It is expected that a majority of the net additional public transport passengers to an extended zone would travel by bus.

17 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

4.16 Currently there are around 110,000 bus passengers coming into the area of the proposed western extension between 7.00am and 6.00pm. Additional bus capacity is being planned as part of the detailed development of a scheme. London Buses would carry out separate consultation on changes to bus provision in the event of the proposed extension being confirmed. 4.17 In addition to any enhancements arising as a result of additional services, reduced traffic levels resulting from a western extension to the congestion charging zone would mean quicker and more reliable journeys for bus passengers in the area. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists 4.18 Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists would likely benefit from improved journey times and/or amenity benefits wherever congestion was reduced. Parking 4.19 The reduced traffic levels could mean that there would be lower parking demands in the area. This would make it easier to find a parking space but would result in lower revenues from parking charges for Borough Councils and other car park operators. Road safety 4.20 The number of accidents in Greater London has been steadily decreasing year-on-year. Within the area of the existing charging zone and its boundary route during charging hours the net decrease is proportionally greater than elsewhere in London. The reduced traffic levels following a western extension would lead to further accident savings; it is expected that there would be between 80 and 120 fewer personal injury accidents annually in Greater London. Of these an annual saving of 25 to 40 would be expected within the enlarged zone and on its boundaries. Effects on individuals and households 4.21 There would be a wide range of impacts on individuals and households – both inside and outside the area of the proposed extension. In simple terms, the impacts fall into direct traffic and transport or financial effects; and various indirect effects. 4.22 Direct traffic and transport effects would result from reduced congestion in and around the proposed extension, making journeys quicker and more reliable by car, bus, taxi, mini-cab and – to a lesser extent – by motor cycle, bicycle and on foot. The direct financial effects would be a consequence of paying the charge – at the full rate of £8; or at a reduced rate of £4 per week for residents, or £7 for those using vehicles registered on TfL’s fleet scheme. 4.23 In round terms, about one third of vehicles with four or more wheels coming into the western extension would pay the full charge. Another third would either be exempt, receive a 100% discount, or be eligible for the residents’ discounted charge. The final third would have, in effect, already paid the charge because they already travel in the existing central London congestion charging zone.

18 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

4.24 As a result, a majority of vehicles and their occupants would experience the traffic benefits resulting from the scheme without paying the full charge. These drivers would probably consider themselves better off, as would those who benefited from improved bus services. 4.25 Those vehicle drivers who paid the £8 or £7 charge, or who felt they had to transfer to public transport, would probably feel themselves worse off. Car users on lower incomes, who felt they had to continue to use their cars and pay the charge, could be significantly disadvantaged. Many car users are, however, also public transport users and pedestrians, and so would benefit from public transport improvements and reduced traffic intrusion. 4.26 However, the exact pattern of who would ‘gain’ and who would ‘lose’ from an enlarged charging scheme is very complex. For example, one household member may gain from improved bus services, while another may feel forced to walk or use public transport rather than use the family car. 4.27 The indirect effects are more difficult to classify. With more reliable journeys by bus, some underground passengers are likely to transfer to this mode. Because of the charge, some would make less frequent journeys to the area; others would gain from the reduced congestion and any consequent environmental and amenity gains. Monitoring results from the existing charging scheme suggest that residents of the proposed extension may come to appreciate the benefits of less traffic in their local area. Economic and financial effects Traffic and transport benefits 4.28 A western extension to the central London congestion charging scheme with a 6.00pm finish could result in a further £65-85 million a year of traffic related economic benefits over and above those of the existing scheme. These figures take into account any potential negative impact of increased traffic levels in the existing zone as a result of a western extension. 4.29 These traffic related benefits consist mainly of time savings to road users experiencing reduced traffic delays. They also allow for benefits such as reduced waiting time for bus passengers, less fuel consumed and fewer accidents. 4.30 Changing the charge finish time to 6.00pm from 6.30pm would reduce the traffic related benefits in the existing charging zone by £6-12 million per annum. 4.31 Extending the zone as proposed could result in total gross benefits as a result of the enlarged scheme of £260-300 million annually.

19 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Revenues 4.32 A western extension to the central London congestion charging zone would be expected to generate £60-80 million gross revenues annually (exclusive of additional public transport fare revenue). The annual operating costs of the extension would amount to some £30 million, resulting in annual net revenues after implementation of roundly £30-50 million (before additional bus operating costs and chargepayer compliance costs). The set-up costs of a western extension are expected to be £120-130 million, plus costs of £20-30 million relating to the re-let of the service provider contract when the current contract ends. 4.33 Net revenues of the existing central London congestion charging zone are expected to be £115-125 million per annum after an increased charge takes effect. Extending the zone as proposed could result in net revenues from the enlarged scheme of £140-160 million annually. 4.34 Changing the charge finish time to 6.00pm from 6.30pm would reduce the net revenues on the existing scheme with an £8 charge by £5-10 million per annum. 4.35 By law all net revenue raised by congestion charging must be spent on measures that support the Mayor's Transport Strategy for a period of ten years from scheme implementation (hypothecation). The Mayor sought the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport to extend this period beyond 2013, the initial end date of hypothecation, should a western extension be progressed. The Secretary of State has agreed that the hypothecation period for revenues would be extended to a date ten years after implementation of a western extension. This would apply to revenues from the whole enlarged scheme. Effect on businesses 4.36 The impact of an extended zone on different types of businesses is expected to be broadly comparable to equivalent businesses in the existing congestion charging zone. Understanding the impact of congestion charging on businesses in central London has been complicated substantially by other regional, national and international factors from early 2003. However, studies by TfL and GLA Economics, a specialist unit within the GLA, have concluded that the net effects are neutral. 4.37 Businesses operating vehicles within the zone would benefit from reduced and more reliable journey times. TfL’s modelling estimates that 60% of the value of time savings due to an extended congestion charging scheme would be to car and taxi occupants on their employers business and to operators of commercial vehicles. 4.38 TfL’s surveys of over 600 businesses in and around the existing zone revealed that a quarter of businesses have experienced some increase in costs due to congestion charging. However, some businesses, particularly in the services and financial sectors, and some distribution businesses have benefited from reduced congestion in the zone. The surveys reported that, providing there is continuous investment in public transport, nearly 60% of businesses support the charge, while less than 25% do not.

20 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

4.39 It is possible that some retailers within the extension zone could experience small net losses from reduced spending by car-borne customers. However, it should be noted that TfL’s survey of shoppers at locations in the area of the proposed western extension showed that most arrive by public transport (over 60%) and a significant proportion walk (over 20%). Only 7% of surveyed shoppers drove, with 2% arriving as car passengers. Of these car-borne shoppers, over a quarter lived in Kensington & Chelsea or Westminster and would be eligible for the 90% residents’ discount to the charge. 4.40 Under an £8 charge any impact on business due to the introduction of congestion charging will be increased when compared to the impact when the charge was introduced at £5, both in terms of increased costs and increased benefits from reduced congestion. To reduce any detrimental impact on business, TfL is introducing improvements the automatic fleet payment scheme enabling smaller businesses to be eligible. Additionally, although the charge is to be raised to £8 for other users, it is proposed that vehicles registered on the scheme would pay at a discounted rate of £7. Discounts for monthly and annual payments will soon be available. 4.41 The proposed earlier charging end time of 6.00pm could be beneficial to the evening economy in central London, particularly restaurants and theatres, but would mean the loss of congestion benefits to all road users, including bus passengers, in the period 6.00pm to 6.30pm. Environment 4.42 A reduction in vehicle movements would lead to lower levels of vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, and hence reduced carbon emissions. However, it is not expected that the scheme would contribute significantly to any changes in ambient air quality. 4.43 Noise reductions due to the scheme are not expected to be significant, however, with less traffic it might be possible to more readily introduce traffic measures that would remove traffic from certain streets. 4.44 An extension to the central London congestion charging scheme would be beneficial for other schemes designed to improve amenity or the environment. For example, traffic management schemes under development for Sloane Square and Exhibition Road, which are designed to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, would be assisted by reduced traffic levels due to an extension. 4.45 The visual impact of the scheme would be small given the identification of practical and safe locations for all cameras, streetside hardware and signs that reduce any intrusion. 4.46 Following the introduction of the central London congestion charging scheme, improvements to environmental quality within the zone have been recognised. It is anticipated that the reduced traffic levels in the western extension could result in comparable reactions.

21 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

5. Impact Assessments 5.1 The Transport Strategy Revision, published in August 2004, was accompanied by high level assessments of its potential impact on the environment, health, equality and inclusion, sustainable development, and the economy. The Transport Strategy Revision proposed that TfL would continue to investigate the potential for and impacts of an extended central London congestion charging scheme. 5.2 In line with this, TfL commissioned a number of consultants to prepare more detailed assessments for the proposed western extension. The first stage of this process was production of draft scoping reports. These documents were circulated in late November 2004 to the 10 London Boroughs most directly affected by the proposed scheme to allow them the opportunity to make comments. A number of comments were received from the Boroughs and were incorporated into ‘initial assessments’ prepared for the preliminary consultation in January 2005. 5.3 The completed impact assessments are now available on the TfL website (www.tfl.gov.uk), including a non-technical summary of the environmental assessment. The contents of the impact assessments are summarised below. 5.4 It is intended that these assessments, with any updates or revisions as necessary, would be presented to the Mayor along with TfL’s report on the public consultation to inform his decision as to whether or not to confirm the Variation Order, with or without modifications. Economy 5.5 TfL commissioned GLA Economics to carry out an economic assessment of the proposed western extension. 5.6 The assessment considers the impacts on businesses by sector in the existing congestion charging zone; analyses the business structure and character of industries in the proposed western extension; considers the changes in travel patterns caused by a western extension; and assesses the potential effects of a western extension on business sectors in that area. 5.7 Cost benefit and financial analyses of a western extension are set out by TfL in the document Supplementary Information on the Traffic and Transport Effects of the Proposed Western Extension to the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme, which is available on the internet from the TfL website (www.tfl.gov.uk).

22 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Environment 5.8 TfL commissioned Hyder Consulting to carry out an environmental assessment of the proposed western extension. A formal Environmental Impact Assessment under Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended) is not legally required but TfL undertook a voluntary Environmental Assessment as a matter of best practice, having regard to the requirements of the Directive. The assessment considers the following topics: • planning policy context • socio-economics • ecology and nature conservation • ground conditions • water • air quality and climate change • landscape/townscape and visual intrusion • archaeology and cultural heritage • noise and vibration • transportation and access • disruption due to construction 5.9 A more detailed treatment of air quality was also commissioned from Kings College London, using the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory toolkit that is commonly used for similar assessments by the London Boroughs. This was to provide TfL with a more detailed appreciation of the nature and scale of the air quality impacts across the entire area of inner London affected by the proposals than would be possible in a screening analysis based on specific sites. Equalities and Inclusion 5.10 TfL undertook an Equalities and Social Inclusion Impact Assessment of the proposed western extension, with expert advice provided by Professor Peter Jones of the University of Westminster. 5.11 A socio-economic profile of the western extension area has been produced to quantify the numbers in each of the equalities target groups and other potentially vulnerable groups. Information on deprivation and travel behaviour is also presented. 5.12 A services and amenities profile was used to assist an assessment of whether the implementation of a western extension could cause community severance, or reduce access to services, focussing specifically on the different equality groups. 5.13 Findings of the social impact monitoring studies for the central London scheme and responses to consultation on the draft Transport Strategy Revision have been considered to assess the likely equality and inclusion impacts of a western extension.

23 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Health 5.14 The London Health Observatory was commissioned by TfL to undertake a Health Impact Assessment of the proposed western extension. The report provides explanations about how congestion charging and the proposed scheme could affect health. 5.15 The report provides background information on the proposed scheme and the assessment methodology and reports the completed stages of the assessment: Screening, Scoping and Appraisal. The findings are then presented along with a set of recommendations which aim to enhance potential positive impacts and mitigate any negative impacts that the proposed scheme could pose for health. Sustainable development 5.16 Entec UK Ltd were commissioned by TfL to undertake a Sustainable Development Impact Assessment (SDIA) of the proposed western extension. 5.17 The SDIA is valuable in helping to assess the overall impacts on sustainable development and the consequences of a western extension on the various communities potentially affected by the proposed scheme. It also helps to make sure that any negative consequences are considered for potential mitigation. 5.18 The assessment considers the potential impacts of a western extension on a number of sustainable development objectives. These objectives fit within the London Sustainable Development Commission’s framework.

24 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

6. Monitoring the impacts of the proposed scheme 6.1 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy Revision requires TfL to continue to monitor and assess the performance of the central London congestion charging scheme, including any extension. 6.2 Accordingly, a key component of the proposed western extension to the central London congestion charging zone is a comprehensive programme of Impacts Monitoring. This would allow actual impacts of the scheme to be measured, provide early indications of any problems that might arise, and contribute to the on-going assessment and review of the performance of the scheme. 6.3 If difficulties emerged with an operational scheme, TfL would consider amending the scheme by varying the Scheme Order, the associated traffic management arrangement or the complementary public transport arrangements. The monitoring programme would help to inform the design of any mitigating action. 6.4 The general approach to monitoring the proposed western extension would be based on the arrangement and experience of the monitoring of the existing congestion charging zone. 6.5 Considerable data has already been collected on travel patterns and traffic volumes during the time that the proposed western extension has been developed. It is envisaged that further collection of 'baseline' data on existing conditions in relation to an extension would continue during 2005 and 2006. Traffic levels, congestion and public transport 6.6 The monitoring arrangements for the central London congestion charging scheme have generally worked well. The broad approach would therefore be to extend these arrangements to cover the western extension and surrounding areas. In summary: • traffic volumes would be monitored on strategic cordons, screenlines and key routes in/around the western extension, capacity being matched to the required statistical precision and need for timely early results; • congestion would primarily be monitored through intensive Moving Car Observer surveys, as currently used in the existing zone, together with the scheme enforcement cameras; • key data on public transport trends would continue to be assembled from the operators, with the addition of new surveys where operator data is not sufficient. Social monitoring 6.7 This work would examine the impact on individuals and households. It would be particularly important to understand adverse impacts on potentially vulnerable groups that may arise from the proposed extension. 6.8 Work to assess the social impact of the existing scheme successfully increased understanding and a similar programme of social impacts research would be implemented for an extension.

25 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

Economic monitoring 6.9 The impacts of the scheme on businesses and the central London economy have been the subject of debate. This has led to a review of the arrangements for monitoring the central London congestion charging scheme, and the resulting initiatives would be incorporated into the corresponding arrangements for the western extension. Key enhancements include: • more comprehensive understanding of the structure of businesses in the proposed extension; • greater emphasis on the quantification of business impacts, through the implementation of statistical, econometric and other formal analytical methods; • closer working with business organisations and individual businesses, to improve the data available for the work, and to more fully understand business concerns and information requirements. Environmental monitoring 6.10 Although it is considered unlikely that the western extension would have any significant impact on local air quality and noise levels, monitoring is still planned. The current arrangements for monitoring these impacts in relation to the central London congestion charging scheme would be extended to include existing air quality and noise monitoring sites relevant to the western extension, and possibly additional monitoring sites.

26 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

7. Indicative timetable for introducing the scheme 7.1 The stakeholder and public consultation on a Variation Order that would define a western extension of the existing central London congestion charging zone is due to finish on 15 July 2005. 7.2 Following the close of consultation, TfL will analyse the responses to this consultation and produce a report for the Mayor summarising the responses and making a recommendation as to how he should proceed. 7.3 By Autumn 2005, the Mayor could be in a position to make his decision as to whether the Variation Order should be confirmed (with or without modifications) and, hence, whether or not TfL should proceed with the implementation of the extension. The Mayor would also assess whether it was appropriate to hold further consultation or a public inquiry in relation to the scheme or any element of it. 7.4 Should the Mayor confirm the Variation Order in Autumn 2005, the earliest that the extension could be implemented would be early 2007.

27 Scheme Description and Summary of Impacts

28