DOCSLIB.ORG

The Use of Transit Investment and Congestion Pricing to Influence Travel and Location Decisions in London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Use of Transit Investment and Congestion Pricing to Influence Travel and Location Decisions in London The Adaptable City: The Use of Transit Investment and Congestion Pricing to Influence Travel and Location Decisions in London by Andrea Lynn Broaddus A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning and the Designated Emphasis in Global Metropolitan Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Elizabeth Deakin, Chair Professor Daniel Chatman Professor Robert Cervero Professor Joan Walker Fall 2015 The Adaptable City: The Use of Transit Investment and Congestion Pricing to Influence Travel and Location Decisions in London Copyright 2015 By Andrea Lynn Broaddus ABSTRACT The Adaptable City: The Use of Transit Investment and Congestion Pricing to Influence Travel and Location Decisions in London by Andrea Lynn Broaddus Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor Elizabeth Deakin, Chair This dissertation investigates two key transportation policies influencing travel behavior and location decisions in London towards sustainability: bus priority and congestion charging. Traffic congestion is a problem faced by cities worldwide, imposing time delays on travelers and decreasing economic efficiency. Congestion is increasing as cities are successful at attracting population and employment growth. This increasing urban density increases competition for urban road space, resulting in traffic congestion and forcing prioritization among road users. At the same time, sustainability goals increasingly set reduction targets for vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Transportation policy must both reduce congestion and VMT, while maintaining a fair distribution of costs and benefits among residents. London has navigated these challenges through pairing bus priority as a ‘carrot’ and congestion charging as a ‘stick’ policy. Beginning in the late 1990s with the introduction of a bus priority network, and continuing with the 2003 introduction of congestion charging in the central business district, London has achieved a decade-long trend of declining VMT and mode shift to transit and non-motorized modes. This research investigates the processes of how they were implemented, including consideration of the necessary politics, financing, and institutional authority. The synergistic impacts of these two policies over a decade is investigated in three dimensions: travel behavior, costs and benefits, and firm location decisions. First, the role of bus priority in the successful implementation of congestion charging is explored. Built from 1994 to 2003, London’s regional bus priority network was in place when congestion charging implemented in 2003. The development and scope of this bus priority network is discussed using previously unpublished data. It was found that approximately 15% of London’s arterial road network was reallocated to create a 1,100 mile (1,800 km) regional network of dedicated bus lanes. An analysis of Census travel to work data before and after congestion charging showed that declines in driving and increases in bus ridership were highest along bus network corridors. It is argued that bus priority explains why car use and VMT began 1 to decline the London region in 1999, and then played a key role in preparing transport system capacity to absorb drivers switching to transit. Secondly, the costs and benefits of London’s congestion charging policy are evaluated over the decade since it was implemented in 2003. Due to the rare implementation of congestion charging, this study is the first longer-term evaluation of a congestion charging policy using empirical data. It is the first to consider impacts on Londoner’s culture and attitudes, and reasons why the central charge zone was non-controversial while the western extension zone was removed. The research revealed congestion charging has had wider impacts on traffic levels beyond the charged zone, leading to travel time savings for vehicular traffic throughout Inner London. It had mixed results in meeting its stated goals of reducing traffic volumes, increasing vehicle travel speeds, improving public transit service, reducing vehicle emissions, and improving safety for bicycles and pedestrians. Traffic volumes entering the charged area fell immediately and remained stable, while transit ridership increased and has continued an upward trend. However, travel speeds increased in the short term but fell in the longer term, such that congestion levels today in the charged zone are approximately the same as they were before congestion charging. The study found that this is not considered a negative outcome by city officials. By clearing cars off the roads, congestion charging allowed for a ‘capacity grab’ where road space and travel time savings were reallocated to buses and pedestrians. Bus speeds and reliability have vastly improved, pedestrian fatality and serious injury rates have plummeted, bicycle use has more than doubled, and air quality has shown some small benefits. City officials assert these outcomes would not have been achievable without the network reconfigurations made possible by released capacity. Thirdly, the longer-term impacts of the accessibility improvements realized in the central charged zone (CCZ) due to bus priority and congestion charging were investigated. It was hypothesized that improved accessibility in the congestion charging zone is being capitalized into higher land and rent costs. Firms valuing accessibility were expected to be the most likely to remain or to move in, in spite of rising rents. This hypothesis was tested using two panels of firms for the period 1997 to 2012 created with microdata from the UK Business Structure Database (BSD). One panel had only micro enterprises with ten or fewer employees, the other had larger firms with more than ten employees. Rent and accessibility data was added to each panel to explore the role of these factors. The study found the concentration of larger firms has been increasing inside the CCZ since 2004. Industry sectors that depend upon agglomeration economies have been concentrating there at the highest rate, especially ‘knowledge’ industries like Computers/Telecomm/Research & Development and Business Management Consulting. Evidence was found of increased churn, or rates of firm relocation into and out of the CCZ. For larger firms, the ratio of moves in to moves out increased from 1.02 in 1998-2002 to 1.14 in 2008-2012, indicating a preference for locating in the CCZ. Most firms that moved into the CCZ improved their transit accessibility by 20% to 40%. The net flow of jobs moving in to out also increased from .80 in 1998-2002 to 1.16 in 2008-2012. Retention of tourism sector firms increased in the CCZ, including Theatre & Cinema and Sports & Culture. Sectors vulnerable to 2 rising rents and factor costs, including Retail and Restaurants, had increased odds of moving out of the CCZ. Rising rents were a statistically significant factor for firms moving out, and these firms were likely to have reduced accessibility after the move. The pull of accessibility on firms moving into the CCZ was stronger than the push of rising rents on those moving out. The dissertation concludes with a discussion of the findings, policy implications, and next steps for research. 3 Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Research questions ................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Overview of the dissertation ................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Congestion charging: rationale and issues with implementation .......................................... 5 1.4 Methods and data .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Summary of research contributions..................................................................................... 10 Chapter 2. Understanding London as a Transit Oriented City ............................................ 13 2.1 Historic context and major areas of London ....................................................................... 13 2.2 Governance.......................................................................................................................... 18 2.3 Economic structure of Greater London ............................................................................... 19 2.4 A brief history of the politics of transportation planning in London .................................. 24 2.5 Rail transit investments, 1990 to 2012 ................................................................................ 33 Chapter 3. Long-Term Trends .................................................................................................. 38 3.1 Commuter infill throughout Inner London .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The London Congestion Charge
    Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 4—Fall 2006—Pages 157–176 The London Congestion Charge Jonathan Leape y the 1990s, the average speed of trips across London was below that at the beginning of the twentieth century—before the car was introduced (New- B bery, 1990, p. 35). Traffic speeds in central London had fallen more than 20 percent since the 1960s, from an average 12.7 mph for the morning peak period in 1968 (and a high of 14.2 mph in 1975) to 10 mph in 1998. Even in the larger area of inner London, drivers in 1998 spent almost 30 percent of their time stationary during peak periods and more than half their time traveling at speeds of less than 10 mph (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998). By 2002, the all-day average travel speed in central London was just 8.6 mph (14.3 km/hour), compared to an uncongested (night-time or “free flow”) average speed of around 20 mph (32 km/hour). Congestion, measured in terms of minutes of delay per mile compared to uncongested conditions, averaged 3.7 minutes/mile (2.3 min/km) (Transport for London, 2003a, p. 11). With more than one million people entering central London between 7:00 and 10:00 a.m. on an average workday, and more than one-quarter of those by road, the cost of congestion was clearly considerable. Public concern over levels of traffic congestion was high. An independent survey in 1999 identified public transport and congestion as the two most “impor- tant problems requiring action”—selected by 46 and 33 percent of London resi- dents, respectively, compared to 20 percent for crime or law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Abercrombie's Green-Wedge Vision for London: the County of London Plan 1943 and the Greater London Plan 1944
    Abercrombie’s green-wedge vision for London: the County of London Plan 1943 and the Greater London Plan 1944 Abstract This paper analyses the role that the green wedges idea played in the main official reconstruction plans for London, namely the County of London Plan 1943 and the Greater London Plan 1944. Green wedges were theorised in the first decade of the twentieth century and discussed in multifaceted ways up to the end of the Second World War. Despite having been prominent in many plans for London, they have been largely overlooked in planning history. This paper argues that green wedges were instrumental in these plans to the formulation of a more modern, sociable, healthier and greener peacetime London. Keywords: Green wedges, green belt, reconstruction, London, planning Introduction Green wedges have been theorised as an essential part of planning debates since the beginning of the twentieth century. Their prominent position in texts and plans rivalled that of the green belt, despite the comparatively disproportionate attention given to the latter by planning historians (see, for example, Purdom, 1945, 151; Freestone, 2003, 67–98; Ward, 2002, 172; Sutcliffe, 1981a; Amati and Yokohari, 1997, 311–37). From the mid-nineteenth century, the provision of green spaces became a fundamental aspect of modern town planning (Dümpelmann, 2005, 75; Dal Co, 1980, 141–293). In this context, the green wedges idea emerged as a solution to the need to provide open spaces for growing urban areas, as well as to establish a direct 1 connection to the countryside for inner city dwellers. Green wedges would also funnel fresh air, greenery and sunlight into the urban core.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge
    Economics Working Paper Series 2014/015 Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge Colin P. Green, John. S. Heywood and Maria Navarro The Department of Economics Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX UK © Authors All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full acknowledgement is given. LUMS home page: http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/ Traffic Accidents and the London Congestion Charge Colin P. Green1, John. S. Heywood2,1 and Maria Navarro1 1Lancaster University 2 University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Abstract In a rare effort to internalize congestion costs, London recently instituted charges for traveling by car to the central city during peak hours. Although the theoretical influence on the number and severity of traffic accidents is ambiguous, we show that the policy generated a substantial reduction in both accidents and fatalities in the charged area and hours. At the same time, the spatial, temporal and vehicle specific nature of the charge may cause unintended substitutions as traffic and accidents shift to other proximate areas, times and to uncharged vehicles. We demonstrate that, to the contrary, the congestion charge reduced accidents and fatalities in adjacent areas, times and for uncharged vehicles. These results are consistent with the government's objective to use the congestion charge to more broadly promote public transport and change driving habits. JEL Codes: I18, R48, H27 Keywords: Traffic Congestion; Pricing; Vehicle Accidents The authors thank the Melvin Lurie Memorial Fund at UWM which allowed Heywood and Navarro to work together in the fall of 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Operators Route Contracts
    Company Name Routes On Contract Contract Start Date Contract End Date Extended Expiry Date Blue Triangle Buses Limited 300 06-Mar-10 07-Dec-18 03-Mar-17 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 193 01-Oct-11 28-Sep-18 28-Sep-18 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 364 01-Nov-14 01-Nov-19 29-Oct-21 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 147 07-May-16 07-May-21 05-May-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 376 17-Sep-16 17-Sep-21 15-Sep-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 346 01-Oct-16 01-Oct-21 29-Sep-23 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL3 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL1/NEL1 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited EL2 18-Feb-17 18-Feb-22 16-Feb-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 101 04-Mar-17 04-Mar-22 01-Mar-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 5 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 15/N15 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 115 26-Aug-17 26-Aug-22 23-Aug-24 Blue Triangle Buses Limited 674 17-Oct-15 16-Oct-20 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 649/650/651 02-Jan-16 01-Jan-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 687 30-Apr-16 30-Apr-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 608 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 646 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 648 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 652 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 656 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 679 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote Blue Triangle Buses Limited 686 03-Sep-16 03-Sep-21 See footnote
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Managing Congestion
    Understanding and Managing Congestion For Transport for London On behalf of Greater London Authority Final Version 1-0 November 2017 Understanding and Managing Congestion Final Version 1-0 November 2017 Produced by: For: Transport for London On behalf of: Greater London Authority Contact: Jim Bradley Integrated Transport Planning Ltd. 6 Hay’s Lane London Bridge London SE1 2HB UNITED KINGDOM 0203 300 1810 [email protected] www.itpworld.net Understanding and Managing Congestion Project Information Sheet Client TfL Project Code 2398 Project Name Understanding and Managing Congestion Project Director Jim Bradley Project Manager Robin Kaenzig Quality Manager Jim Bradley Additional Team Members Jon Harris, Juan Sanclemente, Matt Cottam, Ruby Stringer, Georgia Corr, David Hicks File Location F:\2300-2399\2398 TfL Understanding and Managing Congestion\Technical\Final Report Document Control Sheet Ver. File Name Description Prep. Rev. App. Date V1-0 F:\ Understanding and Final Report RK JB JB 14/11/2017 Managing Congestion Final Report 141117 v1-0 Notice This report has been prepared for TfL and GLA in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. Integrated Transport Planning Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. Understanding and Managing Congestion Acknowledgements An independent panel of experts was invited to provide advice and expertise to inform this study. The panel met four times over the course of the study’s development and comprised: • Dr Rachel Aldred; • Mr Terence Bendixson; • Dr Adrian Davis; and • Dr Lynn Sloman. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all the panel members for their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Accessible Transport Network Easyread
    Making transport in London more accessible How the Mayor is making it easier for you to travel around London. EasyRead version of: Your accessible transport network The Mayor’s commitment to making it even easier for you to travel around London MAYOR OF LONDON Transport for London What is in this booklet Page A few words from Boris Johnson, 1 the Mayor Our services 2 Freedom Pass 3 London buses 3 Training bus drivers 5 Mobility card 6 Tube and rail 7 London Underground 7 London Rail 9 Taxis 11 Dial a Ride 12 Travel mentoring 12 Travel Support Card 12 River services 13 People who walk 13 Information for customers. 14 What is in this booklet Page Our promise to make things even 16 Better How we will do this 17 How you can get involved 26 Our plan for step free stations 27 A few words from Boris Johnson, the Mayor This summer we had the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. Because we spent a lot of money making transport in London accessible: ● disabled people travelled to more places and events than at any other games ● even when transport was really busy disabled people could choose how to travel around London. Things are better but we must spend more money to: ● make the tube easier to use ● build Crossrail with step free stations all over London 1 Our services 11 out of every 100 people in London are disabled. They make over a million journeys in London every day. Older people or people with young children, baby buggies or heavy bags make about 6 million journeys each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Pass Application Concessionary Travel for Disabled and Visually Impaired People
    Freedom Pass application Concessionary travel for disabled and visually impaired people. What is a Freedom Pass? Who is eligible? The Freedom Pass for disabled people Permanent residents of Hammersmith gives free travel within the London & Fulham who meet the criteria as area on buses, the underground laid down by the Department of and Docklands Light Railway all day, Transport Act 2000 (see pages 3 and as well as local rail services after 4). This includes people who are blind 9.30am. The pass may also be used or visually impaired, deaf or hard of to travel on local bus services in the hearing, have a registerable learning rest of England under the terms of the disability or have a permanent physical Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007. disability. INFORMATION The completed form and the accompanying proofs and photo should be sent to: H&F Direct Pay and Park (AT) PO Box 60820 London W6 9UZ Contact: For further information or to contact us: Go online at www.lbhf.gov.uk Email [email protected] Telephone us on 020 8753 6681 In person by booking an appointment using one of the options above. Accessible Transport operates an appointment-only system. You must provide one of each of the following ( please tick). (if sending by post, please supply copies only). Proof of age Birth certificate (unless name changed) Current passport Current driving licence NHS medical card Proof of address (this must be dated in the last three months) Current Council Tax bill Utilities bill (i.e. gas, electricity. Mobile phone bills are not accepted) Bank statement Tenancy agreement (if less than three months old) GP letter confirming address School letter confirming address (children) Photographs One recent passport sized photograph signed on the back.
    [Show full text]
  • The Go-Ahead Group Plc Annual Report and Accounts 2019 1 Stable Cash Generative
    Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 29 June 2019 Taking care of every journey Taking care of every journey Regional bus Regional bus market share (%) We run fully owned commercial bus businesses through our eight bus operations in the UK. Our 8,550 people and 3,055 buses provide Stagecoach: 26% excellent services for our customers in towns and cities on the south FirstGroup: 21% coast of England, in north east England, East Yorkshire and East Anglia Arriva: 14% as well as in vibrant cities like Brighton, Oxford and Manchester. Go-Ahead’s bus customers are the most satisfied in the UK; recently Go-Ahead: 11% achieving our highest customer satisfaction score of 92%. One of our National Express: 7% key strengths in this market is our devolved operating model through Others: 21% which our experienced management teams deliver customer focused strategies in their local areas. We are proud of the role we play in improving the health and wellbeing of our communities through reducing carbon 2621+14+11+7+21L emissions with cleaner buses and taking cars off the road. London & International bus London bus market share (%) In London, we operate tendered bus contracts for Transport for London (TfL), running around 157 routes out of 16 depots. TfL specify the routes Go-Ahead: 23% and service frequency with the Mayor of London setting fares. Contracts Metroline: 18% are tendered for five years with a possible two year extension, based on Arriva: 18% performance against punctuality targets. In addition to earning revenue Stagecoach: 13% for the mileage we operate, we have the opportunity to earn Quality Incentive Contract bonuses if we meet these targets.
    [Show full text]
  • RGS-IBG and AGI Response to Mayor Draft Transport Strategy
    Consultation Response Mayor of London draft Transport Strategy Mayor of London/ Greater London Authority Consultation Date: 29 September 2017 Introduction The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is the UK's learned society and professional body for geography, founded in 1830. We are dedicated to the development and promotion of geographical knowledge, together with its application to the challenges facing society and the environment. The Association for Geographic Information (AGI) is the membership organisation for the UK geospatial industry. The AGI exists to promote the knowledge and use of Geographic Information for the betterment of governance, commerce and the citizen. The AGI represent the interests of the UK's Geographic Information industry; a wide-ranging group of public and private sector organisations, suppliers of geographic information/ geospatial software, hardware, data and services, consultants, academics and interested individuals. The RGS-IBG and the AGI are responding jointly to this consultation to further a shared vision and mission to ensure that geography and geographic information is recognised as an important enabler to the world of big data that surrounds us in the digital economy, and is used more widely across the public, private and third sectors. Our submission has been developed in consultation with the RGS Transport Geography, Economic Geography, Geographies of Health and Wellbeing, Planning and Environmental and Urban Geography Research Groups and with AGI London and the AGI Environmental, Asset Management and Land and Property Special Interest Groups. We welcome this opportunity to provide our views on the draft Transport Strategy. Key Message Geography is a key determinant of transport and transport networks, therefore using robust locational intelligence can enable smarter and more efficient transport networks, infrastructure and services to be delivered.
    [Show full text]
  • [email protected] Contact: Nishma Malde Direct Line
    Contact: Nishma Malde Transport for London Network Rail Direct line: 020 7934 9945 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Date: 2 August 2013 Dear Sir/Madam, TRANSPORT FOR LONDON / NETWORK RAIL CONSULTATION ON CROSSRAIL 2 – LONDON COUNCILS’ RESPONSE London Councils is committed to fighting for resources for London and getting the best possible deal for London’s 33 councils. Part think-tank, part lobbying organisation, and part service provider, London Councils formulates policies, organises campaigns and runs a range of services all designed to make life better for Londoners. Our response to the Transport for London/Network Rail consultation on Crossrail 2 has been developed following consultation with London boroughs. It is divided into the following sections: The case for Crossrail 2 The proposed routes Accessibility at stations Links to aviation Links to regeneration Freedom Pass cost implications HS2 and construction works Funding Annex A - Proposed routes: specific concerns Crossrail 2 is at initial stages and more work will need to to be done to secure funding and design a scheme that maximises benefits across London. We are looking forward to cooperating with you. Yours faithfully, Cllr Catherine West Chair of the London Councils Transport and Environment Committee London Councils, 59½ Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL Tel: 020 7934 9999 Email [email protected] Website www.londoncouncils.gov.uk August 2013 TfL/Network Rail consultation on Crossrail 2 London Councils’ response The case for Crossrail 2 1. London Councils welcomes the joint consultation on Transport for London (TfL) and Network Rail’s options for Crossrail 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 21,134 Sq Ft
    21,134 SQ FT RARE URBAN WAREHOUSE UNIT UNDERGOING FULL REFURBISHMENT UNIT 4 AVAILABLE TO OCCUPY JUNE 2021 IN PRIME LONDON LOCATION SEGRO.com/ParkCanningTown WELL-PLACED FOR ACCESS TO PORTS CITY OF LONDON CANARY WHARF Unit 4 at SEGRO Park Canning Town provides 21,134 sq ft (1,963 sq m) of A12/A102 rare urban warehouse space in one of London’s most premium and well- connected city logistics parks. A406 NORTH CIRCULAR RD Here’s why a variety of businesses have already set up shop and called SEGRO Park Canning Town home: UNIT 4 A13 An enviable location in the heart Within walking distance of three Zone A406 NORTH CIRCULAR RD and bustle of East London 2/3 tube stations, making it an ideal location for workers on the estate A key location for London centric M25 J30 customers, SEGRO Park Canning With convenient links to London Town’s proximity to Canary Wharf Gateway and Tilbury Port, SEGRO Park and beyond makes it ideal for serving Canning Town provides direct access CANNING TOWN STATION a London market to the city’s large shipping network. STAR LANE STATION CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CITY IN THE HEART OF EAST LONDON BOREHAMWOOD ENFIELD WATFORD BARNET Unit 4 is undergoing a complete M1 A1 STAPLEFORD M11 ABBOTTS 4 refurbishment which will enhance A10 M25 2 NORTHWOOD EDGWARE employee wellbeing, exceed sustainability WOODFORD F U LLY standards and introduce new tech REFURBISHED 4 HARROW A12 innovations and solutions to create 1 A1 ROMFORD 1 a more holistic working environment. WEMBLEY HOLLOWAY STRATFORD A40 DAGENHAM A10 BARKING HAYES GREENFORD A13
    [Show full text]
  • Travel Tips United Kingdom
    Travel Tips United Kingdom City Guide London London is the largest city in the United Kingdom and a leader in global finance, fashion, commerce and education. It has a population of 8.17 million people and is located in south-eastern part of Great Britain and lies along the banks of the River Thames. London dates back 2 millennia to Roman times when it was a northern outpost of the Roman Empire. Airports London has two major international airports, and the city is easily reached from both of them. Heathrow (LHR) Heathrow located 15 miles west of London and there are a wide variety of transportation options to bring you to the city center. The Underground is the cheapest option with a one way ticket costing at most £6 (US$9.5). It takes close to an hour to reach most destinations within central London. The Heathrow Express train is the fastest option and will bring you to Paddington station in between 15 and 20 min. It costs £34 (US$53) for a return ticket. If your destination is not in the Paddington area, the Underground may end up taking less time overall. Various bus companies operate to and from London, and prices usually average about £12 (US$19) for a return ticket. There are several coaches that operate to outlying areas such as Oxford if London is not your final destination. There is a taxi queue in front of the arrivals gate, and private “Mini-Cabs” can be ordered ahead of time. It usually costs between £50-100 (US$75-$155).
    [Show full text]