APPENDIX C the Royal Borough's Concerns with the West London
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
APPENDIX C The Royal Borough‘s concerns with the W est London Tram. The Royal Borough‘s concerns with the West London Tram are set out below. Traffic impacts C.1 The introduction of a Tram along the Uxbridge Road is likely to have a significant impact on the distribution of traffic across west London. TfL‘s proposed route necessitates significant changes to the traffic management arrangements at Shepherd‘s Bush Green. In particular the north side of the Green will be closed to all traffic (except to trams and eastbound buses and access) and the southern side converted to two-way operation. The closure of part of Shepherd‘s Bush Green may result in reduced capacity of Shepherd‘s Bush Green. It is expected that this element of the proposal will have a serious adverse impact on the road network in the Royal Borough, including the following. • The model shows that Kensington High Street will have an increase in traffic of between 200 and 450 vehicles along much of its length in the eastbound direction in the am and inter-peak period. In a westbound direction flows will increase by between 150 and 350 at the western end of the High Street during all time periods. • A two way increase of about 300-400 vehicles on Holland Road, during all time periods. • A 300-vehicle increase in vehicles on Warwick Gardens/Pembroke Rd in the inter-peak. • Other significant increases in traffic (greater than 100 vehicles) are expected along parts of Holland Park Avenue (westbound), and Cromwell Road (westbound) in the am peak. • There will be some moderate increase in traffic of vehicles using north-south links between Holland Park Avenue/Notting Hill Gate and Kensington High Street. • There is likely to be increases in queues, delays and journey times and for residents of the Royal Borough travelling within the central part of the Borough, such as Holland Park Avenue. • The West London Tram does not reduce traffic congestion, which is one of the main objectives set out in the consultation leaflet. • Only 10% of WLT patronage will come from cars. With 85% usage from existing public transfer modes and the remaining 5% from ”new‘ or induced trips. • Most of the benefits of the schemes are from public transport passenger timesavings. Public Transport C.2 The proposed route terminates at the new White City Development adjacent to the Central Line station. The public transport model results are only available for the AM and Inter peak period. There is no PM peak model. The models show significant increases in the use of the Central Line (between Shepherds Bush and Central London) in both directions in both periods modelled. Use of buses in the area also increases in the AM peak. TfL have not provided information to show if there is the capacity to cope with any increases in underground or bus use. Lack of detailed information C.3 Officers are concerned that TfL had failed to provide the Council with the all information that is needed to determine what would be the impact on the residents of the Borough, visitors and workers. Quality of the traffic model C.4 Officers remain extremely concerned that the traffic model does not meet the normal standards that would be expected. The traffic model fails to replicate ”independent‘ observed traffic flows to acceptable levels, and the predictions should be treated with caution. The model, for example, could seriously under estimate the traffic flow increases and over estimate the benefits of the tram. C.5 The traffic model appears to under estimate journey times on the Uxbridge Road during all time periods. It frequently fails to replicate modelled journey time along parts of the route œ particularly in the westbound direction in the am and pm peak, and the eastbound direction in the Inter-peak. The journey time results are used to assess the models robustness and in calculating the journey time benefits/dis-benefits of the scheme. C.6 The model does not include specific traffic flows associated with the White City development. The traffic impacts of White City have only been included in the predicted traffic growth forecasts for the whole of the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and spread over the network. C.7 The traffic impacts likely to be created by the proposed congestion Charge extension have not been included in the traffic model. Possible extensions C.8 The Mayor and other stakeholders have stated that the potential exists for the future extension of the Tram along Holland Park Avenue/ Bayswater to provide a link to Oxford Street and the West End. A route north toward Wormwood Scrubs has also been suggested. Environment C.9 The consultation material includes a limited assessment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. These are based on the traffic reduction expected along the corridor of the Tram. At this stage TfL are understood not to have assessed the environmental impact of increased traffic and congestion within the Royal Borough. Timetable slippage C.10 TfL‘s consultation document published the following timetable: Autumn/Winter 2004 Report on consultation Winter 2004 Mayoral decision Spring 2005 Transport and Works Order Autumn 2005 Public Inquiry Summer 2006 Secretary of state decision Winter 2005- Spring 2007 Procurement Spring/Summer 2007 Construction Starts Early 2011 First tram The timetable has slipped to: November 2004 Consolidated Design Starts Summer 2005 Detailed design August 2005 Design Freeze Autumn 2005 TfL Board Approval Early 2006 Transport & Works Order deposit followed by 42 days objection period Autumn 2006 Public Inquiry Summer 2008 Transport & Works Order awarded 2012 Scheme Opens Comments and concerns of Members of the Council. C.11 At the meeting of 19 January, Members of the Council expressed the following concerns and comments about the tram. TfL‘s responses are summarised in italic • Have TfL measured the traffic impacts of the recent minor road works at Shepherd‘s Bush Green and the temporary closure Holland Road to extrapolate the likely impacts of closing the north side of the Green to traffic? TfL did not use these short-term events to predict the likely impacts of closing the north side of the Green. • What alternatives to the tram were studied? What perturbed scenarios were tested in the model? Had sensitivity tests been applied to the model? In 2001 TfL considered other alternatives including improved bus services, guided buses and electric tolley buses, but the tram possessed higher capacity and delivered a cheaper service. The perturb scenarios looked at the time benefits and congestion impacts of dedicated tramway or shared running at congested area along Uxbridge Road such as West Ealing and Acton. Sensitivity tests were made to the public transport model such as changes to the frequency, speed and loading rates for the tram. For the Highway model TfL looked at how traffic will behave on sections where traffic shared with the tram, and tested how well the model replicated existing situation. Key parameters were identified and tested. • Given the proposed changes to Shepherd‘s Bush Green, was traffic likely to increase on North Pole Road and St Mark‘s Road, Notting Hill Gate, Holland Road? TfL gave a response about general traffic flows in the area and did not comment on the likely impact on these specific roads. • The tram will be expensive to build and has a potential to cause disruption. What will the benefits of the tram be, given that much of the take up of the tram will be by bus passengers? TfL made a general point about the Tram replacing the 207 and 607 bus services and how other bus services would link into the new tram route. • The model shows that the introduction of the tram does not worsen the level of congestion significantly, with little increase in public transport patronage as most passengers come from existing buses. Why not simply improve existing bus services? TfL responded by saying that the Uxbridge Road has many junctions crossing it, and that the corridor cannot cope with predicted increases in bus passenger demand by 2011 (and thus increased numbers of buses). The tram has greater capacity. • Who will finance and fund the tram? Will it come from Mayor of London‘s precept on Council Tax, the extension of Congestion Charge, higher CCS charges, or customers of the tram? Who will ensure that money is collected from the customers of the tram? TfL made a general point about infrastructure schemes being expensive, but the wider route benefits needed to be considered. The funding gap would be filled by prudential borrowing and private sector contributions. • Department for Transport does not support trams as they are cutting funding for tram projects throughout the country. TfL did not have the opportunity to respond to this comment as these remarks were made in a winding-up speech. • The GLA, London Assembly Transport Committee‘s response to TfL‘s consultation on the West London Tram was quoted, particularly the section expressing concerns about TfL‘s passenger projections. The Committee also said it would find it easier to come to a firm conclusion about supporting the tram if TfL would provide revised modeling data and full detail on the tram‘s potential impact. TfL did not have the opportunity to respond to this comment as these remarks were made in a winding-up speech. • The model is not to a standard that is acceptable to Council Officers. The proposed Congestion Charge extension has not been included in model, and nor has the White City development. What will be the combined impacts of these changes? TfL did not have the opportunity to respond to this comment as these remarks were made in a winding-up speech.