DOCSLIB.ORG

Cumulative Growth Scenario – West Sub-Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cumulative Growth Scenario – West Sub-Region Cumulative Growth Scenario – West Sub-Region Presentation to West London Panel 24th September 2015 Contents 1. Sub Regional Approach & Methodology 2. Growth & Impacts of the Cumulative Growth Scenario 3. West Sub-Regional Challenges Summary 4. Next Steps 2 1 Sub regional approach & Methodology • Evidence-based approach – Range of data sources to identify current and future challenges – Focus on the cumulative impact of growth • A consistent method used across all sub regions • Two alternative scenarios were modelled and to identify the impacts of growth and tested against a 2011 baseline. These were: – A baseline scenario 2011 – A reference case scenario 2041, broadly in line with the revised London Plan 2015 (although see note on following page) – A maximum growth scenario 2041, to consider growth exceeding current assumptions. This scenario included higher density development in the opportunity areas. • The two 2041 test scenarios both included the committed transport infrastructure improvements: – Committed National Rail capacity upgrades associated with HSLOS1 and 2 (High Level Output Specification); – Committed London Underground capacity upgrades associated with the PPP upgrade programme; – Cross rail 1. – They did not include uncommitted schemes: e.g. Crossrail 2, various rail projects facilitated by a new overground station/stations at Old Oak Common. 4 • The boroughs, TfL and the GLA are working together to identify the strategic transport requirements to support both: – Current needs; and – Growth across the sub region over the next 25 years focused on Opportunity Areas . • Transport investment is needed to enable higher density living and to make areas more attractive to live in. • There is a focus on public transport and sustainable modes, but necessary road improvements are also considered, to enable essential movement 5 What do the 2 future year scenarios include? • Reference Case (2041): TfL’s strategic representation of 2041 using the FALP growth projections at GLA level and a borough distribution of growth that reflects the likely location of future development. • It should be noted that for many Opportunity Areas, the stated FALP target is not fully represented by the 2041 Reference Case planning inputs. This is because the former is an aspirational end-state capacity target for a specific area, so a different entity from the strategic GLA employment and population projections developed for Greater London. In the process to convert the borough population and employment totals to an input for each constituent model zone, the borough total is treated as constrained to the GLA borough projection. Therefore there is only a set amount of growth that can be allocated across all the model zones within the borough, making it unlikely that a particular concentration of growth capacity can be fully represented. The above is manifested in Hammersmith & Fulham where OOC growth is not fully included in the ref. case. • Cumulative growth case (2041): A high growth scenario developed to represent the delivery of the target end state homes and employment capacity in each OA/AI in Greater London (plus a couple of known growth areas outside of these). To achieve this, extra employment and population was added to the 2041 Reference Case totals of a number of LTS zones. 6 2. Growth & Impact of Cumulative Growth Scenario Inner and outer West 8 Growth forecast 2011-2041 Population growth between 2011 and 2041 Job growth between 2011 and 2041 • West sub-regional population growth is forecast • West sub-regional jobs growth is forecast to increase to increase from 1,608k, by an additional 286k from 808k, by an additional 136k (17%) between (16%) between 2011 and 2041. 2011 and 2041. • In the Reference case, this will increase by an • In the Reference case, this will increase by an additional 101k people (35% overall). additional 96k jobs (29% overall). • Hammersmith and Fulham is forecast to • Hammersmith and Fulham is forecast to accommodate the highest increase in accommodate the highest increase in jobs population 9 Focus on inner western arc Inner West OA’s • Wembley, Old Oak, Park Royal, Kensal Canalside, White City, Earls Court • South of area is CAZ like • Most of office jobs here • North of area more industrial • High density land uses relative to outer • Greater reliance on PT and walk/cycle • Large number of daily trips through the area into central London 10 Transport implications: Current and future trip numbers Trips from inner West boroughs (which for this are Brent, Ealing and H&F): • Almost half remain in inner West • Approximately 45% of trips are split equally between outer west and going to either the Central sub-region or outside London • +55,000 trips between 2011 and 2041 Reference ; +89,000 trips between 2011 and 2041 High Growth Scenario • Overall growth in trips to all locations • Split between destinations remains broadly the same 2011 2041 Ref Case 2041 High Growth From Inner West to... From Inner West to... From Inner West to... Number of Proportion of Number of Proportion of Number of Proportion of Destination trips all trips trips all trips trips all trips Inner West 162,000 44% 172,000 41% 192,000 42% Outer West 41,000 11% 46,000 11% 49,000 11% South Sub Region 15,000 4% 18,000 4% 19,000 4% Central Sub Region 105,000 29% 123,000 29% 130,000 28% East Sub Region 14,000 4% 23,000 5% 25,000 5% North Sub Region 14,000 4% 16,000 4% 17,000 4% Outside London 18,000 5% 26,000 6% 26,000 6% Total 369,000 100% 424,000 100% 458,000 100% 11 3. Transport implications: Changing trip distribution Public transport trips growth from inner west between 2011 and 2041 High Growth • Increasing number of local trips by public transport within inner west and from inner west to central London between 2011 and 2041 High Growth • Crossrail enhances ability to access City and Canary Wharf This highlights growing public transport mode shares but also growing number of trips so greater mode shift will be required 13 A mode shift to public transport will encourage active travel • The proportion of those walking to work as their main mode has been fairly constant over the last 20 years and is unlikely to change significantly by 2041. • However, as public transport trips and mode share increase the number and proportion of people walking as part of their journey will increase. • There will be more pedestrians on the streets, with implications for health, urban realm and safety. • The Mayors Transport Strategy set a target to increase cycling trips by 400% by 2026 (from 2000 levels). 14 3. West sub regional challenges summary Summary of challenges and issues from growth analysis to date Challenge Baseline (2011) details 2041 update (based on high growth) Better connectivity is required on a number of Increased demand for trips within inner western arc area and into key N/S routes neighbouring boroughs and central London • Wembley – Park Royal – Ealing Analysis suggests poor connectivity is still an issue on these N/S routes in Broadway 2041. Poor connectivity to, from and within key locations • Wembley – Old Oak Need to extend White City – Hammersmith – Clapham corridor north to include Old Oak • Old Oak – White City – Hammersmith/Earls Court – Clapham New Old Oak C ommon station and new rail connections will improve Junction area’s connectivity but this isn’t in modelling analysis to date The key causes of severance are the main These are all still issues. L ocal severance continues to be an issue with Physical barriers to radial routes the A40, A4, A406, The Great growing traffic congestion. T he extent of localised connectivity movement West Railway and localised railway lines, improvements across A40 to enable more local movement between Old particularly around the Park Royal and Old Oak O ak and White C ity is unclear but it is reasonable to assume these will areas. happen. T raffic flows increase on all west L ondon strategic highway routes. Particularly on the A40, A4 and A406. Freight J unction delays are forecast to worsen at most A40 junctions in the vicinity comprises a significant proportion of traffic in Congestion on strategic of Park R oyal, Old Oak and White C ity. Many A406 and A4 junctions also west London, although enabling freight to road network experience major delays. continue to be able to access Park Royal and Heathrow will be critical. Air quality is likely to get worse, as is noise and potentially road safety. C rowding appears to ease on several LUL lines by 2041, although it does Especially on Piccadilly and Hammersmith and Crowding on public worsen when comparing the two 2041 scenarios. R ail crowding on City Lines but District and Central lines also transport C rossrail is severe by 2041. C rowding eases on other lines. S tation busy. crowding appears to worsen. Whilst no specific air quality forecasts are available for 2041 it is Land based air quality is poor, particularly in Air Quality reasonable to assume that air quality will continue to deteriorate along outer west London around Heathrow. road corridors. Areas of deprivation and There are a number of areas in west London A large number of new jobs are accessible by 2041, mostly as a result of low quality of life within the neighbouring OA’s that experience high levels jobs growth. Need to ensure that local people in deprived areas area of deprivation and poor quality of life. surrounding OA’s can access these jobs. Increasing traffic flow levels and junction delays imply that public realm will There are a number of areas of poor public Poor quality urban realm in worsen in locations adjacent to the major road network in inner west.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Turning South London Orange Passenger Demand, Proposed Main
    Turning south London orange Passenger demand, proposed main schemes and new stations / interchanges Contents Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Current entry+exit demand ...................................................................................................................... 2 By Oyster Zone .......................................................................................................................... 3 By Route Corridor Group ............................................................................................................. 4 Modelling future demand ........................................................................................................................ 5 Interchanges and Connectivity ................................................................................................................. 6 New Services and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 Satellite Activity Zones ................................................................................................................ 6 Underlying railway technical changes .......................................................................................... 7 Streatham ‘Virtual Tube’ ............................................................................................................. 8 A new South London Line ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment Is to Be Handed Down by the Judge Remotely by Circulation to the Parties’ Representatives by Email and Release to Bailii
    Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment is to be handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 4 March 2021. Neutral Citation Number [2021] EWHC 458 (TCC) Case No: HT-2019-000061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT (QB) Business and Property Courts Rolls Building London, EC4A 2NL Date: 4 March 2021 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FRASER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : BECHTEL LIMITED Claimant - and - HIGH SPEED TWO (HS2) LIMITED Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael Bowsher QC and Ligia Osepciu (instructed by Hogan Lovells LLP) for the Claimant Sarah Hannaford QC, Simon Taylor and Ben Graff (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28 October and 10 and 11 November 2020 Draft distributed to parties 12 February 2021 Mr Justice Fraser: 1. This judgment is in the following parts. Paragraph number A: Introduction 2 B: Confidentiality 31 C: The Issues 40 D: The Procurement 43 E: The Witnesses 105 F: The Duties upon HS2 and Records 283 G: Qualifications 314 H: Limitation 337 I: The Result of the Competition 345 J: Abnormally Low Tender 456 K: Different contract and abandonment 482 L: Conclusions 509 Appendix I: Questions challenged and scoring factors Appendix II: Fee Information - Confidential A: Introduction 2. This is a procurement claim brought by Bechtel Ltd (“Bechtel”) against High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd (“HS2”) for breaches of the duties imposed upon HS2 by the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (“UCR 2016”).
    [Show full text]
  • Submissions to Call for Evidence from Individuals
    Submissions to call for evidence from individuals 1 Ref Individual Name RD-35 Andrew Bosi RD-36 Ann Lusmore RD-37 ‘Bruce’ Rail User RD-38 Chris Torrero RD-39 D.M. Byrne RD-40 David Dando RD-41 Fenella De Smet RD-42 Graham Larkbey RD-43 Guiliana Castle RD-44 Joe Webb RD-45 John Linwood RD-46 Jon Salmon RD-47 Joseph Barnsley RD-48 Laurel Rutledge RD-49 Laurence Mack RD-50a Lewis Cooke RD-50b Lewis Cooke RD-51 Luke Nicolaides RD-52 Cllr O Rybinkski RD-53 Matt Buck RD-54 Patricia Taylor RD-55 Phil Vasili RD-56 Peter Haggett RD-57 Phil Wass RD-58a Philip Ridley RD-58b Philip Ridley RD-58c Philip Ridley RD-59 Richard Logue RD-60a Rob Knight RD-60b Rob Knight RD-61 Robert Woolley RD-62 Simon Feldman RD-63 Steve Whitehead RD-64 Vic Heerah RD-65 Zara Stewart 2 RD - 35 Thank you for the invitation to comment. 1. What are the key problems with National Rail services in London that need to be addressed? They are less frequent than tubes and London Overground services, they end too early, there are insufficent staff members on stations. 2. What changes to the delivery, funding or governance of rail services in London should be considered? The concession arrangement granted to LOROL has transformed the services in question, proving that increasing the frequency and attractiveness of the service brings people off the roads and onto rail, or out of their homes to become economically active. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2: Examining Authority's General Questions Arising from the Draft
    Application by NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for The Sizewell C Pro The Examining Authority’s written questions and requests for information (ExQ1) Issued on 21 April 2021 Responses are due by Deadline 2: Wednesday 2 June 2021 PART 1 OF 6 G. 1 General and Cross-topic Questions Ag.1 Agriculture and soils AQ.1 Air Quality Al.1 Alternatives AR.1 Amenity and recreation Page 1 of 84 ExQ1: 21 April 2021 Responses due by Deadline 2: 2 June 2021 ExQ1 Question to: Question: G.1 General and Cross-topic Questions G.1.0 The Applicant Limits of deviation As drafted the DCO has no limitation on the depth to which works could be undertaken. Please explain how this aligns with the assessment carried out within the ES. In order to reflect the assessment within the ES does the DCO not require a maximum depth of excavation – with a potential for a limit of deviation? If this is not considered to be necessary, please explain how the ES has assessed the potential effects of unlimited excavation. Response G.1.1 The Applicant Plans The Planning Statement, Plate 3.2, identifies the nominated site area for Sizewell C from NPS EN-6. Please provide a set of the Figures from the original Government Appraisal of Sustainability for the site, and an overlay of the DCO Application site highlighting any additional land included or excluded from that assessed including identification of the temporary construction area. Response G.1.2 The Applicant Plans On an appropriately scaled ordnance survey plan show the land within the DCO for the main development site and the lines of latitude and longitude referred to in paragraph C.8.88 of NPS-6 Vol II.
    [Show full text]
  • Railse No.150 December 2020
    railse no.150 December 2020 The quarterly branch newsletter of in London and the South East Britain’s leading independent campaign for a bigger better railway for passengers and freight Return to rail – safely, confidently Decarbonisation = electrification! The predominantly electrified rail network across most of our regional branch area still has a way to go before diesel-powered trains become a rarity. One task is electrifying Thames port and other similar connections for freight haulage, to discard the ubiquitous class 66! As this newsletter is published so too are the Office of Rail & Road’s latest annual station usage estimates. For the year 2019/20, they reflect the pandemic near the end of the period to 31st March. Next December’s figures, for the current year to March 2021, will be a horror-show and our challenge as a pro-rail campaign is to ‘build back better’ passenger usage – of a resilient transport system which is now into the final five-year countdown towards a truly notable bicentenary! We have just two straightforward messages: ~ to the general public: of all possible ways in which you might become infected with the virus, using public transport is proven to be one of the most unlikely; Class 88 electro-diesel loco for Direct Rail Services ~ to the rail industry: as passengers see when they return to their local station after closure for a half-term Dirty diesels destined for departure? of route improvement work, post-pandemic passengers returning must see improvements too with consistently Our three unelectrified routes (two of which don’t serve higher standards maintained for cleanliness of stations London) operate a fraction of the hourly diesel trains and trains and for punctuality of services.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    The voice of transport users A London TravelWatch report Response to TfL’s consultation on the potential extension of the Bakerloo line further into South East London November 2014 Published by: London TravelWatch 169 Union Street London SE1 0LL Phone: 020 3176 2999 www.londontravelwatch.org.uk 2 London TravelWatch is the official body set up by Parliament to provide a Extending the Bakerloo Li Extending the Bakerloo voice for London’s travelling public, including the users of all forms of public transport. We are supported by and accountable to the London Assembly. Our approach We commission and carry out research, and evaluate and interpret the research carried out by others, to ensure that decisions on transport policy and operations are based on the best possible evidence ne We investigate complaints users have been unable to resolve with service providers – we get more than 6,000 enquiries a year from transport users and in 2013-14 we took 1,100 cases up with the transport operator because we agreed that the response the complainant had received to their original complaint was not satisfactory We monitor trends in service quality as part of our intelligence-led approach We regularly meet and seek to influence the relevant parts of the transport industry on all issues which affect the travelling public and work closely with a wide range of public interest organisations, user groups and research bodies to ensure we remain aware of their experiences and concerns We speak for passengers and the travelling public in discussions with opinion formers and decision makers at all levels, including the Mayor of London, the London Assembly, the Government, Parliament and local councils.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes Before the First Train Until 15 Minutes After the Last Train
    Appendix 2 Budget and Performance Committee – 15 October 2014 Transcript of Item 5 – London Overground John Biggs AM (Chairman): The main item then is London Overground and we have four witnesses, Jon Fox and Peter Austin from, well, I think of them both from Transport for London [TfL]. Peter Austin, you are actually from the operator, is that right? Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): From the operating company. John Biggs AM (Chairman): We have Janet Cooke from TravelWatch and Jonathan Roberts from Jonathan Roberts Consulting, who many of us know from his work down the years on various bits of London’s transport. He and I grew old together on the East London line extension, I think. Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): Yes. John Biggs AM (Chairman): We are now younger again. OK, so we have a series of questions, but I think we will start with a presentation from London Overground Rail Operations Limited (LOROL). So welcome. Peter Austin (Managing Director, London Overground Rail Operations Ltd): Good afternoon, thanks very much. There are just a few slides with thought we would take you through, just to try to set the scene. I am Peter Austin, I am the Managing Director at LOROL. I have been with the company since we actually went through the original bidding process as well; originally as Finance Director and for the last 18 months as Managing Director, so I have seen the whole procurement process and actually the change that has happened. Where did we start? Back before 2007 I think, a well-known piece of work about London’s forgotten railroad, about the North London line.
    [Show full text]
  • TSOL Passenger Demand | Jonathan Roberts Consulting
    Turning south London orange Passenger demand, proposed main schemes and new stations / interchanges Contents Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Current entry+exit demand ...................................................................................................................... 2 By Oyster Zone .......................................................................................................................... 3 By Route Corridor Group ............................................................................................................. 4 Modelling future demand ........................................................................................................................ 5 Interchanges and Connectivity ................................................................................................................. 6 New Services and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 Satellite Activity Zones ................................................................................................................ 6 Underlying railway technical changes .......................................................................................... 7 Streatham ‘Virtual Tube’ ............................................................................................................. 8 A new South London Line ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Raising the Capital the Report of the London Finance Commission
    Raising the capital The report of the London Finance Commission MAY 2013 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION Raising the capital The report of the London Finance Commission MAY 2013 1 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C opyright P ublished by London Finance Commission City Hall, The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA May 2013 www.london.gov.uk 020 7983 4564 ISBN 978 1 84781 479 1 Design: www.jwcreativedesign.co.uk © London Finance Commission, 2013 2 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C ontents CHAIR’S FOREWORD 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 13 1. Introduction and background to the Commission 14 2. UK devolution in context 17 3. Summary of previous reviews 21 4. Principles adopted in making recommendations 25 PART 2: EVIDENCE 27 1. Summary of evidence received 28 2. Academic and international evidence 34 PART 3: SUPPORTING LONDON AND UK GROWTH 37 1. London and UK cities 38 2. Funding and incentivising growth 47 PART 4: FISCAL POWERS 56 1. Introduction to fiscal devolution 57 2. Emerging concepts of devolution to cities 59 3. Property taxes 62 4. Radical tax reforms? 70 5. Fees and charges 73 PART 5: RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE LONDON 75 1. Distributional and equalisation mechanisms 76 2. Implications for wider London government reform 78 3. London within England 80 4. Conclusion 81 ANNEXES 82 1. Biographies 83 2. Terms of Reference 86 3. London’s tax and spending 89 3 RAISING THE CAPITAL | THE REPORT OF THE LONDON FINANCE COMMISSION C hair’s foreword T he London Finance Commission provides an opportunity to improve the government of London.
    [Show full text]