Volterra Partners, November 2018

Congestion on Embankment

A report for Unblock the Embankment by Volterra Partners, November 2018

Volterra

1 Introduction East-West Cycle Superhighway

1.1 The East-West Cycle Superhighway (EWCS) from Tower Hill to Lancaster Gate is one of a number of new cycle superhighways recently constructed as part of the Cycle Superhighways programme. The programme is intended to generate and support a large anticipated growth in cycling, with a target of 1.5m cycle journeys per day by 2026, as part of the Mayor’s vision for cycling in London. The Cycle Superhighways programme forms part of a £0.9m cycling portfolio – one of five core portfolios totalling £4bn in road investments as part of TfL’s Road Modernisation Plan.

1.2 The EWCS, known as Cycle Superhighway 3, is now open to cyclists in both directions from Tower Hill to Lancaster Gate, with minor finishing works continuing until the end of autumn 2018. The changes as part of the EWCS are wide-ranging (summarised in Annex 1) and include:  Removal of an eastbound traffic lane to make way for a segregated, two-way cycle track to separate cyclists from motor traffic;  Junction innovations including early start, early release and two-stage right turn facilities for cyclists;  More pedestrian space through wider footways, traffic islands, and bus and coach stop waiting areas;  New pedestrian crossings in some places and improved crossings elsewhere.

1.3 According to TfL, the goal of the EWCS is to encourage the large number of people who would like to cycle, but who currently feel unable (due largely to safety concerns), and to improve safety for the existing cyclists. It does that, in large part, by prioritising cyclists over drivers, both in terms of safety and journey times.

1.4 Modelling was undertaken by TfL on the expected journey time impacts of the changes prior to the scheme being built, which initially showed an increased journey time of around 16 minutes between Limehouse Link Tunnel and Hyde Park Corner in the AM Peak in the westbound direction. In response to consultation undertaken in autumn 2014, changes were made to the scheme to reduce the journey time impact to six minutes. These changes included retaining two lanes of traffic along most of the westbound carriageway between Tower Hill and Westminster Bridge.

1.5 This report focuses on the journey time changes to transport users rather than conducting an economic appraisal. The report uses the benefits and costs predicted by TfL in February 2015, and initial analysis of how the benefits and costs to transport users have changed based on observed data after the opening of the EWCS.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

2 Expected impacts TfL vehicle journey time modelling

2.1 While the scheme’s aims were to increase the number of cyclists in London and improve the safety of existing cyclists, the scheme has had knock on impacts on drivers by reducing the space available to motorists, losing a lane of traffic along much of the route.

2.2 TfL modelling, undertaken prior to EWCS opening, shows the travel times on certain links of road in both the AM and PM peak and in each direction. Journey times were modelled for the three central London sections of the route – East Smithfield (just east of Tower Hill) to St Margaret’s Street (Parliament Square); Westminster Bridge to Hyde Park Corner; and Lancaster Gate to the A40 Westway flyover, along Westbourne Terrace. The section through Hyde Park was not modelled as TfL were still finalising proposals along this stretch. These links, along with the long link between Hyde Park Corner and Limehouse Link Tunnel, are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Map of Cycle superhighway sections

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

2.3 The model outputs give a ‘base’ journey time, which represents the situation at the time the model was run, and a ‘future base’ which represents the situation that was expected as of December 2016 in the absence of the scheme. These can be compared with the modelled scenario showing the situation in December 2016 with the scheme in place. Figure 2 shows the journey times in each scenario.

2.4 As shown in Figure 2, the travel times were expected to decrease slightly by December 2016 in the absence of the scheme, and expected to increase with the scheme in place. The longest section of the EWCS for which modelling is available is the section between Limehouse Link and Hyde Park corner. On this link, when comparing the future base scenario with the ‘with scheme’ scenario, the EWCS leads to a:  5.7 minute delay in the AM peak eastbound;  4.5 minute delay in the PM peak eastbound;  8.2 minute delay in the AM peak westbound; and  7.7 minute delay in the PM peak westbound.

2.5 Based on these modelled delays, the level of time lost for motor vehicle users due to the EWCS was expected to be c.400 hours. This is based on the observed volumes of traffic and the modelled delays in each of the peak periods, in each direction. These hours lost to congestion can are broken down as follows:  105 hours lost in the AM peak eastbound;  70 hours lost in the PM peak eastbound;  100 hours lost in the AM peak westbound; and  135 hours lost in the PM peak westbound.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Figure 2: Motor Vehicle travel times from TfL modelling

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Changes due to consultation

2.6 Figure 2 shows that the expected delays due to the scheme changed over time as alterations were made in response to consultation. In particular, the predicted increase in journey times over the future base scenario in the westbound AM peak fell from almost 18 minutes (Panel A) to 8 minutes (Panel B). This was following changes made after consultation that retained two lanes of traffic along most of the westbound carriageway between Tower Hill and Westminster Bridge.

2.7 Between the September 2014 initial model results and the February 2015 revised results, the main impacts were to:  Lower the increase in journey times between Limehouse Link tunnel and Hyde Park Corner by almost 10 minutes in the westbound direction in both AM and PM peaks;  Increase the journey time delay on the same route in the eastbound direction in the PM peak by over a minute, and reduce the delay in the AM peak by over 3 minutes;  Increase the delay on the westbound link between East Smithfield and St Margaret Street by over 3 minutes in the AM peak, while reducing delays by almost 8 minutes in the PM peak.

2.8 These changes are due to a number of alterations made to the scheme, including:  The retention of two westbound traffic lanes between Tower Hill and Northumberland Avenue;  Lifting some of the previously proposed traffic restrictions at Fish Street Hill, Horse Guards Road and Storey’s Gate;  Removal or relocation of a bus/coach stop and removal of one of three pedestrian crossings near the Victoria Embankment/Northumberland Avenue junction to aid traffic flow;  More loading, disabled and motorcycle parking on Victoria Embankment and allowing more time for loading. Expected journey time benefits/costs of the scheme Initial BCR

2.9 A Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) was calculated for each of the Cycle Superhighways proposed1, of which the East-West route was the only one which was predicted to have a negative BCR (i.e. the scheme produces net disbenefits rather than positive benefits).

2.10 The TfL Board paper for the proposed schemes breaks down the costs and benefits, and shows that the negative impacts on journey times and additional bus operating costs outweighed the health, safety and ambience benefits, resulting in net annual disbenefits of over £8m (see Figure 3 – EW column).

1 Transport for London (TfL). Proposed Cycle Superhighways Schemes – Board paper. 4 February 2015.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Figure 3: TfL modelled BCR

Source: TfL (2015)

Estimated benefits/costs due to journey time savings

2.11 Based on the journey time data from TfL modelling summarised in Figure 2, the journey time costs can be valued. This is done by applying values of time from TfL’s Business Case Development Manual. The results are not directly comparable to those produced by TfL (summarised in Figure 3) as the data available is not as detailed as the model data that TfL has access to.

2.12 The delays from Limehouse Link to Hyde Park Corner shown in Figure 2 (Panel B) result in £5.4m worth of journey time costs per year, of which 48% are costs to trips in work time. Over a 30 year appraisal period, the net present value (NPV) is estimated to be - £118m. Of these journey time disbenefits, 94% are due to increases in private motor vehicle journey times.

2.13 Delays to four bus routes affected by the EWCS were modelled and included in the journey time costs, resulting in costs of £450k per year, or £8.6m NPV over a 30 year appraisal period.

2.14 These delays need to be compared to the journey time benefits to cyclists using the route. TfL modelling predicted:  2 minute delays to cycle journey times between Royal Mint Street and Hyde Park Corner in the eastbound AM peak;  2 minute journey time savings in the westbound AM peak;  2 minute journey time savings in the eastbound PM peak;  3 minute journey time savings in the westbound PM peak.

2.15 The benefits to cycle journey times have been calculated based on these modelled time savings which results in user benefits of £254k per year, of which £32k are business time savings. Over a 30 year appraisal period this is equivalent to £6.1m in cycle journey time savings.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

2.16 There are two sets of results shown:  A comparison between the base case (2014) and the future scenario with the scheme, corresponding with the results described above. This is shown in Table 1;  A comparison between the ‘future base’ (2016) and the future scenario with the scheme. This is shown in Table 2, and produces higher journey time costs of £157m (30 year NPV).

Table 1: Journey time costs/benefits compared with base case

Annual journey time benefit Cycle user benefits £254k Of which business time savings £32k Bus user benefits - £541k Of which business time savings - 65k Other motor vehicle user benefits - £4.6m Of which business time savings - £2.6m Total user benefits - £5.4m

Table 2: Journey time costs/benefits compared with future base

Annual journey time benefit Cycle user benefits £254k Of which business time savings £32k Bus user benefits - £541k Of which business time savings - 65k Other motor vehicle user benefits - £6.3m Of which business time savings - £3.4m Total user benefits - £6.6m

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

3 Observed outcomes Observed vehicle journey times

3.1 Volterra has been provided with TfL journey time data for the A3211 between Westminster Bridge and Tower Hill which shows average vehicle journey times over five years of 13-periods per year (4-week periods). There are 13 periods before the start of construction, 14 periods during construction, and 31 periods after construction was complete. The data is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Journey time impacts between Westminster Bridge and Tower Hill

3.2 Figure 4 shows the difference in average journey times along the route before, during and after the construction of the EWCS. In each direction and in both peaks, there has been an increase in journey times after construction when compared with before. In almost all cases, the impacts were at their highest during the construction phase.

3.3 An analysis of the time series has been produced, taking into account trends in the pre- construction and post-construction journey times, along with external events such as the Tower Bridge Closure which caused large delays, particularly in the eastbound PM peak. The analysis suggests that the EWCS has caused a:  10.8 minute increase in journey time in the eastbound PM peak;  8.0 minute increase in journey time in the eastbound AM peak;

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

 4.1 minute increase in journey time in the westbound PM peak;  1.3 minute increase in journey time in the westbound AM peak.

3.4 These journey time changes are higher in the eastbound direction and lower in the westbound direction than initial modelling by TfL suggested. The two sets of results are compared in Table 3. The complete analysis of journey time impacts is presented in Annex 2.

Table 3: Comparison of expected and actual increase in journey time (minutes)

Expected journey time Volterra estimate of impacts from Feb 2015 TfL observed journey time modelling (against future impacts – base scenario) – Westminster Bridge to Tower Limehouse Link to Hyde Park Hill Corner AM peak, eastbound 5.7 8.0 PM peak, eastbound 4.5 10.8 AM peak, westbound 8.2 1.3 PM peak, westbound 7.7 4.1

Labour market catchment

3.5 One of the impacts of increased journey times is reduced business connectivity and labour market catchment to Westminster. For this analysis, it has been assumed that all areas to the east of Westminster and north of the river have been affected by the 8 minute increase in eastbound journey times at the AM peak hour, and 10.8 minute increase to eastbound journey times in the PM peak. While there may be some re- routing of trips to avoid the Victoria Embankment, it is assumed that these alternate routes heading eastbound are equally affected as traffic re-routes to avoid congested areas, in turn increasing traffic volumes on these routes.

3.6 Analysis of drive times at the AM peak suggest that London City Airport, Canning Town, Bethnal Green, West Ham and a large part of the Isle of Dogs are no longer accessible within a 30 minute drive time, while they would have been before the implementation of the EWCS (Figure 5). In fact, there are c.8,350 postcodes that are no longer within the 30 minute drive time catchment which span across 19 different poscode districts (Table 4).

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Table 4: Postcode districts removed from 30 minute drive catchment (AM peak)

Postcode District Number of individual postcodes

E14 1,263 N1 1,064 E3 1,023 E2 895 E16 749 N7 605 E6 508 E13 507 N5 428 E8 422 E15 283 E1 195 N16 171 N4 134 E9 58 N1C 19 NW1 19 IG11 2 N81 2

3.7 In the PM peak, drivers travelling Eastbound from Westminster now spend 30 minutes travelling to Tower Bridge. Before the implementation of the EWCS, drivers would have been able to travel as far as Canary Wharf. Among other locations that are no longer accessible within a 30 minute drive time of Westminster at the PM peak are Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Hoxton, Shadwell and Limehouse (Figure 6).

3.8 A total of c.6,130 postcodes are now no longer covered by a 30 minute drive time catchment from Westminster in the PM peak. Table 5 summarises these postcodes spread over 21 postcode districts

Table 5: Postcode districts removed from 30 minute drive catchment (PM peak)

Postcode District Number of individual postcodes

N1 1,548 E1 1,383 N1P 714 E2 580 E14 543 E1W 379 EC2A 299 E8 167 EC2M 119 EC3N 80 EC3A 77

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Postcode District Number of individual postcodes

E98 61 EC1V 57 EC3M 39 EC3R 36 EC1Y 25 EC2N 14 E3 5 EC2P 2 EC3V 2 EC3P 1

Figure 5: Areas accessible within a 30 minute drive of Westminster in the AM peak

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Figure 6: Areas accessible within a 30 minute drive of Westminster in the PM peak

3.9 The labour market catchment that can no longer be reached within 30 minutes of Westminster by van, lorry, or car can be shown by the number of businesses no longer within this catchment. It is estimated that over 15,000 businesses are no longer accessible within 30 minutes of Westminster at the AM peak, and over 18,000 businesses are outside this catchement for the PM peak. This represents a 7% decrease in the number of businesses accessible within 30minutes at the AM peak and a 13% decrease in businesses at the PM peak.

3.10 These businesses are broken down by size band in Table 6.

Table 6: Business counts by employment size band

Employment size band Businesses now outside of Businesses now outside of (employment) AM peak 30 minutes PM peak 30 minute catchment [% change] catchment [% change] Large (250+) 60 [5%] 50 [7%] Medium – sized (50 - 249) 300 [5%] 350 [9%] Small (10 – 49) 1,270 [5%] 2,025 [11%] Micro (0 – 9) 13,580 [8%] 15,900 [14%] Total 15,190 [7%] 18,335 [13%] Source: UK business counts (ONS, 2018) NB: Figures derived from MSOA level aggregated data

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Time lost to vehicle journey time delays

3.11 The total time lost to delays on the A3211 is large. The eastbound and westbound AM and PM peak journey time delays lead to over 400 hours lost by drivers every day. This figure ignores the fact that delays also exist outside of the peak hours (for which data is unavailable) so the actual figure is likely to be higher.

3.12 The breakdown of the estimated 400 lost hours are as follows:  Eastbound in AM peak – 199 hours lost;  Eastbound in PM peak – 123 hours lost;  Westbound in AM peak – 16 hours lost;  Westbound in PM peak – 72 hours lost. Journey time benefits/costs

3.13 Based on observed journey times before and after the scheme, as summarised in Figure 4 and Table 3, journey time benefits/costs of the scheme have been estimated that are comparable to the TfL modelled values from 2015 for vehicle journey times.

3.14 It is estimated that the disbenefit of the EWCS to motor traffic is c. £5.3m per year, (Table 7). This is within the range of results estimated based on modelled journey time savings prior to the scheme being built of between £4.6m-£6.3m per year (disbenefit) for motor vehicle users.

Table 7: Estimated user benefits

Annual journey time benefit Motor traffic user benefits - £5.3m Of which business time savings - £2.2m 3.15 The van, lorry and car user disbenefites calculated due to the EWCS can be broken down by direction and peak as follows:  Eastbound AM - £2.0m per year;  Eastbound PM - £2.1m per year;  Westbound AM – £0.39m per year;  Westbound PM - £0.84m per year. Safety benefits to cyclists

3.16 To estimate the level of safety benefits accruing to cycle users, TfL road accident data has been extracted over six years along the route, and filtered to contain only incidents involving cyclists.

3.17 Figure 7 shows the pattern of accidents along the route each year, split by severity. There were two recorded fatalities along the route between 2012 and 2017 - one in 2014 and one in 2016.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Figure 7: Accidents along the EWCS route by severity

Source: TfL open data (2018)

3.18 Figure 8 suggests that there has been no clear pattern of changes to cycle accident rates (incidents per 100k cyclists) along the EWCS route over time.

Figure 8: Incidents rates by severity 2012-2017

3.19 Table 8 takes the two years prior to construction (2013 and 2014) and compares this to the two years after construction (2016 and 2017). The change to average accident rates since the completion of the EWCS is not statistically significant for fatalities or serious incidents, although there has been a 30% decrease in ‘slight’ severity incidents which is statistically significant. Accidents with a slight injury were only valued at £16k in the 2017 version of TfL’s business case guidance, compared with £212k for serious injuries and £1.9m for fatalities.

3.20 Overall this suggests that the safety benefits of the EWCS, which were estimated to be £3.3m per year in the original BCR for the scheme, are likely to have been low so far. Applying TfL’s values to the statistically significant change in slight accidents suggests that the benefit has been around £0.4m a year so far. Comparison of incidents in the two years before and after EWCS

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Fatality rate per 100k Serious per 100k Slight per 100k (Accidents/year) (Accidents/year) (Accidents/year) Before 0.029 0.496 3.61 After 0.021 0.538 2.58 Source: TfL open data (2018)

3.21 While no statistically significant change in fatal or serious accidents have been observed along the EWCS route, it is difficult to draw conclusions based on this due to the relatively small study area, and short time period covered since the construction was completed.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

4 Conclusions

4.1 The business case for EWCS, produced by TfL prior to construction, suggested that it had a negative BCR, with the benefits to cyclists outweighed by the delays to road users.

4.2 The results of the analysis in this report suggest that:  The value of the impacts estimated by TfL, based on the model results produced prior to construction of EWCS, seem broadly correct;  Updating those results based on observed vehicle flows and journey times after construction suggests that the results are within the range estimated using the model results;  A relatively large number of businesses are no longer accessible within a 30 minute drive time of Westminster in peak periods due to delays caused by the EWCS;  Analysis of cycle accidents before and after the EWCS opened suggests that the change to fatalities and serious injuries is not statistically significant, although there has been a decrease in slight injuries. This suggests that the value of the safety benefit has been minimal to date.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Annex 1 – Summary of improvements Lancaster Gate

 Introduction of two-way traffic on Bayswater Road;  Segregated two-way cycle track on Westbourne Street between Sussex Gardens and Bayswater Road;  Segregated one-way cycle tracks on Bayswater Road between Westbourne Street and Brook Street, and on Westbourne Terrace between Sussex Gardens and Craven Road;  New signalised pedestrian crossings at Westbourne Street, Sussex Gardens and Bayswater Road, and improvements to other crossings. Hyde Park

 A segregated two-way cycle track on West and South Carriage Drive;  Wider footways and simplified crossings at the Hyde Park Corner/ Constitution Hill junction;  More pedestrian space at the junction of Knightsbridge and Hyde Park Corner. St James’s Park

 New signalised pedestrian crossings at the junction of Horse Guards Road/ Birdcage Walk;  A segregated two-way cycle track on Birdcage Walk and Spur Road;  Wider footways and simplified pedestrian crossings at Buckingham Gate and Link Road. Victoria Embankment

 A segregated two-way cycle track on Victoria Embankment;  Signalised cycle crossings allow cyclists to enter and exit the cycle track at side roads on Victoria Embankment;  Opening Carmelite Street to southbound traffic;  Converting one of the slip roads at Blackfriars Bridge to pedestrian and cycle use only. Upper and Lower Thames Street

 A segregated two-way cycle track along Upper and Lower Thames Streets;  Lambeth Hill is one way to traffic with a contra-flow for cyclists;  Pedestrian crossing and junction improvements;  Traffic signal changes allow cyclists to proceed before other traffic;  Traffic signals for two-stage left and right turns at Arthur Street and Queen Street Place;  Bus and coach stop bypass for cyclists. Tower Hill

 A segregated two-way cycle track on Tower Hill;

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

 Bus and coach stop bypass for cyclists;  Pedestrian crossing and junction improvements;  New traffic signals separate left-turning cyclists and vehicular traffic;  A new northbound mandatory cycle lane on Mansell street;  Improvements to Cycle Superhighway 3 on Royal Mint Street.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Annex 2 – Journey time impacts due to EWCS

TfL provide journey time data for the A3211, specifically for the road distance between Westminster Bridge and Tower Hill. The data provides average journey times for each of 13 financial periods each year (4-weekly periods), between 2014/15 period 1 and 2018/19 period 6. Plots of the data (see Figure 4 of report) appear to show that travel times have been negatively impacted since the construction of the EWCS, but a more robust statistical analysis is required to quantify the results and to see if the changes in journey times are the result of the intervention, or simply due to chance. A segmented regression approach is used, following an interrupted time series design. The following ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model is fitted to estimate the difference in journey times due to the EWCS being complete:

퐽표푢푟푛푒푦 푡푖푚푒푡 = 훽0 + 훽1푡푖푚푒푡 + 훽2푐표푛푠푡푟푢푐푡푖표푛푡 + 훽3푡푖푚푒 푑푢푟푖푛푔 푐표푛푠푡푟푢푐푡푖표푛푡 푛

+ 훽4푐표푚푝푙푒푡푒 + 훽5푡푖푚푒 푎푓푡푒푟 푐표푚푝푙푒푡푖표푛 + ∑ 휕푖푐표푛푡푟표푙푠푡 + 휀푡 푖=1 Here, time is a continuous variable indicating the number of financial periods from the start of the time series; construction is a dummy variable that takes a value construction=1 for the time period in which construction works were underway and construction=0 otherwise; time after construction is a continuous variable counting the number of financial periods after the construction began taking a value of time during construction=0 in the period prior to construction; complete is an indicator variable that takes a value complete=1 for the time periods after which the construction of EWCS was completed and 0 otherwise; time after completion is a continuous variable that counts the number of financial periods from the completion of the EWCS; controls account for other variables that are likely to influence journey times over the period, and includes external events such as road closures not linked to the EWCS. Also included in the set of control variables are variables that account for differences in the relationship based on direction (East = 1 if eastbound and 0 for westbound), differences based on the time of day (AM = 1 during the AM peak hour and 0 for PM peak), along with respective interaction terms. Table 9 below shows the estimated results from the OLS regression. Diagnostic tests

were undertaken to ensure that the residuals of the regression, εt, are randomly distributed and no significant trends remain unexplained. Tests for Autocorrelation, or the tendency for time series data to have consecutive residual observations that are correlated in some way, show the potential for autocorrelation to affect the data. In Table 9, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation (HAC) robust standard errors (and resulting t-statistics and p-values) have been calculated to correct for the impact of Autocorrelation.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Table 8: OLS regression results

Standard error Coefficient t-statistic p-value (HAC robust) (intercept) 11.914 0.580594 20.5197 2.2e-16 *** Time 0.0623 0.057240 1.0885 0.277617 Construction 1.8016 1.037972 1.7357 0.084101 · Complete 4.1384 1.557598 2.6569 0.008497 ** Time during 0.6614 0.114081 5.7978 2.469e-08 *** Time after -0.2306 0.087640 -2.6312 0.009146 ** East 6.6274 0.815517 8.1266 3.897e-14 *** AM 1.7159 0.726722 2.3611 0.019145 * External works 2.3945 1.326228 1.8055 0.072440 · East*AM -8.5010 1.065398 -7.9791 9.766e-14 *** Construction*East -0.3328 1.038865 -0.3203 0.749037 Complete*East 6.6429 0.999722 6.6447 2.613e-10 *** Construction*AM -1.5958 1.043667 -1.5290 0.127782 Complete*AM -2.8068 1.063474 -2.6393 0.008938 ** ------Signif. Codes: <0.1%: *** <1%: ** <5%: * <10%: ·

The results show the impact of the completion of the EWCS on journey times. Due to the interaction terms, the marginal effect of completion will depend on the direction and peak being analysed. These marginal effects are shown in Table 10. All coefficients relating to the completion of the EWCS are significant at the 1% level.

Table 9: Marginal effects of construction of EWCS

AM Peak PM Peak

Eastbound 8.0 minutes 10.8 minutes

Westbound 1.3 minutes 4.1 minutes

The estimated impacts range from 8 to 11 minutes in the eastbound direction, and 1 to 4 minutes in the westbound direction. The actual vs fitted values are shown in Figure 9 across the entire period and for each peak and direction.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Figure 9: Actual vs predicted value plot

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra

Disclaimer

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Volterra Partners LLP. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Volterra Partners LLP constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Volterra Partners LLP’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Volterra Partners LLP and its Client.

Volterra Partners LLP accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

Unblock the Embankment | Congestion on Embankment Volterra