West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case

Home , Dudding Hill Line, Harlesden, Hounslow, Hounslow Loop Line, Old Oak Common, West London line

West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Case

June 2019

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0 Executive Summary ...... 3 1 The Approach to the Business Case ...... 23 2 Strategic Case ...... 24 2.1 Description ...... 24 2.2 Strategic context and the case for change ...... 25 2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria ...... 43 2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs ...... 44 2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements ...... 44 2.6 Strategic Options ...... 44 2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO) ...... 57 2.8 Constraints and Dependencies ...... 77 3 Economic Case ...... 80 3.1 Description ...... 80 3.2 Option selection ...... 80 3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues ...... 81 3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits ...... 87 3.5 Economic Appraisal...... 89 3.6 Economic Case Conclusion ...... 90 4 Commercial Case ...... 92 4.1 Description ...... 92 4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications ...... 92 4.3 Construction and operation ...... 93 5 Financial Case ...... 95 5.1 Description ...... 95 5.2 Financial Impact of the Project ...... 95 5.3 Capital Costs Funding ...... 96 5.4 Operating Costs Funding ...... 99 6 Management Case ...... 103 6.1 Description ...... 103 6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects ...... 103 6.3 Consents Strategy ...... 103 6.4 Project assumptions ...... 104 6.5 Project risk ...... 104 6.6 Governance ...... 105 6.7 Assurance ...... 105 6.8 Communication and stakeholder management ...... 107 6.9 Project reporting ...... 107 6.10 Project milestones and timescales ...... 107 7 Summary ...... 108 7.1 Overall Assessment ...... 108 7.2 Next Steps ...... 109 8 Glossary ...... 110

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0 Executive Summary

0.1 Overview

0.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to enhance public transport connectivity (in particular north-south ‘orbital’ connectivity) in west London in order to enable the delivery of new homes and jobs, and support mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport. 0.1.1.2 The current Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) is in ‘Phase One” of the iterative Business Case development process (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Business Case development phases

Source: DfT 0.1.1.3 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as Proposal 88: “The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and Network Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground ‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.” 0.1.1.4 The scheme has also been referenced in west and north west London1 Local Planning Authorities’ (LPAs) local plans. 0.1.1.5 The scheme consists of a central core between South Acton and Neasden, with two branch options at either end, to Hendon and West Hampstead in the north, and to Hounslow and Kew Bridge in the south (Figure 2). 0.1.1.6 This SOBC shows that the WLO scheme has the potential to address three critical strategic issues facing west and north west London by bringing land into use for housing and employment, providing the connectivity needed to address public transport severance, and delivering benefits to the wider transport system, including for users of existing rail lines and the road network.

1 West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith & Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region. 3

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.1.1.7 The core WLO scheme (8tph) has been tested, alongside sensitivities considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is in the range of 1.4 – 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is in the range 1.7 – 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

0.1.1.8 Based on the findings of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the scheme to be taken forward to the next stage of business case development. 0.1.1.9 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to identify the preferred service pattern and the location and design of new infrastructure including the stations.

Figure 2: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.2 Strategic Case

0.2.1.1 The Strategic Case sets out the need for investment in a transport intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes and employment space to be built, improve north-south ‘orbital’ connectivity, and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport network London is growing and west and north west London is the UK’s second largest economic powerhouse . West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means it will have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment growth over the next 25 years

0.2.1.2 West and north west London is home to significant employment clusters and eight Opportunity Areas, including Old Oak/Park Royal which will become a national and regional gateway following the opening of the Elizabeth line and HS2 station. The areas around Park Royal and Heathrow in particular also have a high concentration of valuable Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). These characteristics mean the sub-region will need to play a major role in delivering both the new homes and jobs that London needs over the next 25 years. Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser development and employment growth in west and north west London . New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and north west London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces

. Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable growth across the sub-region

0.2.1.3 London’s population has been increasing and is forecast to grow from 8.7 million to 10.8 million by 20412. This growth means that there is an increase in demand for new and affordable homes. The draft new London Plan recognises that all LPAs will need to significantly increase housing delivery to meet the Capital’s need, particularly LPAs in outer London, where 55 per cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered3. The draft new London Plan sets ambitious housing delivery targets, including for LPAs in west and north west London. LB Barnet, LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hounslow and OPDC collectively account for 14.5 per cent of London’s forecast population growth.

2 Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2017 3 Draft new London Plan 2017 5

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 1: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in west and north west London Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target Barnet 31,340 Brent 29,150 Ealing 28,070 Hounslow 21,820 OPDC 13,670 Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1) 0.2.1.4 Some of this growth will be accommodated in Opportunity Areas at Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal, Wembley and the Great West Corridor. Wembley and Hounslow Town Centre are also designated Housing Zones4, planned to deliver 2,840 and 3,900 homes respectively. Together these all form an arc across west and north west London (Figure 3). 0.2.1.5 These Opportunity Areas are poorly connected both to each other and to existing town centres. This limits access to amenities, services, and employment and leisure opportunities for both existing and new residents and employees.

Figure 3: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London

4 In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of 75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs 6

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.2.1.6 New public transport capacity and connectivity is needed to enable the further delivery of new homes and jobs, both in existing neighbourhoods and town centres, and in areas which have previously been undeveloped or underdeveloped5. Enhanced public transport capacity could enable existing neighbourhoods to grow sustainably while new public transport connections could help unlock the full growth potential of parts of west and north west London. 0.2.1.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these Opportunity Areas will allow them to develop as an interconnected sub-regional network, enabling new employment centres to be supported by nearby new residential neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This should help unlock additional new homes, over and above those unlocked by committed schemes. Supporting this Good Growth6 will help London to become a city where walking, cycling and using public transport is the norm as its population increases to over 10 million. Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north west London . New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between Burnt Oak/Colindale and Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas and Old Oak/Park Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas as these places experience transformational growth

. Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters in LB Hounslow and areas to the north, including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area, to ensure these areas can continue to grow sustainably

. Connecting existing radial rail routes to fast, reliable orbital public transport services would enable commuters from outside of London to access existing and growing employment clusters across west and north west London by public transport

0.2.1.8 Only 57 per cent of trips with an origin in west London are currently made by active, efficient and sustainable modes. In order to achieve the MTS aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable modes, boroughs across west and north west London must see significant mode shift over the next two decades. Public transport will need to become a more attractive alternative to the car, particularly for longer orbital trips where significant barriers exist.

5 This does not include the Green Belt 6 The draft new London Plan describes Good Growth under policies GG1 – GG6 7

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 2: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by sub-region Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share South 70% 54% West 61% 57% North 59% 58% East 56% 63% Central 37% 83% Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17) 0.2.1.9 Achieving this will require three key connectivity challenges in west and north west London to be addressed: . Connectivity between LB Barnet and West London . Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop (currently served by South West Trains) and the North London line (currently served by London Overground) . Inter-connectivity from radial corridors such as those served by the Jubilee and Bakerloo lines and Thameslink services to destinations in the wider sub-region

0.2.1.10 There is a gap in orbital public transport provision between west and north west London. Public transport journey times between LB Brent and LB Barnet are relatively poor. For example, it takes the same time to travel north from Harlesden to Brent Cross (5km) as it does to travel south to Southfields (10km).

Figure 4: Journey time by public transport from Harlesden town centre

Brent Cross

Southfields

Map data ©2019 Google Source: TfL WebCAT Map data ©2019 Google 0.2.1.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas of housing and employment growth in north west London, particularly around 8

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Given the strong pull that is forecast to emerge between these locations (resulting from housing and employment growth in the former and employment growth in particular in the latter), it is vital that a competitive public transport option is provided to ensure that new trips are made by active, efficient and sustainable modes. 0.2.1.12 Orbital connectivity from LB Hounslow is constrained by poor interchange options between the Hounslow Loop line (served by Southwestern Railway) and existing orbital rail such as the North London line (served by London Overground). The requirement to make several interchanges also acts as a barrier to spontaneous and independent travel for disabled and older people. 0.2.1.13 This serves to limit public transport connectivity to the emerging employment centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Residents of LB Hounslow would have to make indirect journeys to access employment opportunities at Old Oak by public transport, while residents in growing neighbourhoods further north, such as North Acton, would not have competitive public transport options to access jobs in the nearby Great West Corridor. 0.2.1.14 This would have negative implications for mode share as these employment centres grow, and/or act as a brake on development if businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers and employees. A better public transport option is needed to ensure this employment growth does not increase car dependency, and is not constrained by poor public transport connectivity. 0.2.1.15 The public transport network in west and north west London struggles to cater for longer-distance orbital trips as there is a lack of orbital public transport provision to link high-capacity radial lines together. This means that the public transport network operates as a series of corridors oriented towards central London, rather than as a regional system, significantly limiting travel choice and connectivity. 0.2.1.16 The effects of this are also felt across the Wider South East, as west and north west London’s employment mix draws commuters from well beyond the London boundary, with some of the highest volumes of in-commuting outside of central London. 0.2.1.17 For longer trips to be competitive by public transport, existing high frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back- track via central London. Improved orbital connectivity is critical to ensure employment growth across the sub-region does not exacerbate highway congestion. 0.2.1.18 While the Elizabeth Line will deliver new radial connectivity towards the CAZ and Isle of Dogs, the impact on orbital connectivity within the sub-

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

region will be relatively limited outside of changes to the bus network to improve links to Elizabeth line stations. Further intervention is needed. Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to address congestion and crowding in west and north west London . A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to reduce congestion on the road network in west and north west London

. Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate pressure on the Piccadilly and West London lines

0.2.1.19 As a result of poor orbital public transport connectivity, many north-south movements in west and north west London are considerably faster and easier to make by car. Congestion is high where there are gaps in the public transport network, particularly in the Harlesden area and around Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge. The A406 North Circular Road between Chiswick Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been reported as the most congested in the UK.7 High levels of congestion are reflected in problems of poor air quality in these locations8. 0.2.1.20 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability, and brings associated noise and air quality disbenefits to residents. Figure 5 maps inter peak delay for key west and north west London corridors.

Figure 5: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden – Hendon; Kew – Acton)

High delay on A406 north of Ealing

High delay between Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge High delay around Harlesden town centre and between Harlesden and Brent Cross along A406

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971 Delay measurement is the speed compared to the night time speed (10pm to 6am free flow) measured in minutes per km Source: Trafficmaster (2016)

7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799 8 http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp 10

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.2.1.21 With only committed investment, crowding on the Piccadilly and West London lines will become severe in the future, adding further barriers to orbital travel by public transport. This could constrain sustainable housing and employment growth in Opportunity Areas, Housing Zones and locally- identified growth and regeneration areas across the sub-region and more widely. 0.2.1.22 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding. Furthermore, by providing additional north-south capacity, and alternative routes avoiding central London, new public transport connectivity could help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of the most congested parts of the network. This would deliver more resilience to the transport network as a whole. Objectives 0.2.1.23 These challenges highlight the need for a transport intervention in west and north west London. In response, TfL and the West London Alliance (WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Scheme objectives Objective A – New Objective B – Orbital transport Objective C – Public transport homes & jobs connectivity capacity

Enable the delivery of new Enhance orbital public transport Enhance public transport homes and jobs in west connectivity to and between capacity in west and north west and north west London in major trip attractors in west and London to relieve pressure on line with the principles of north west London (e.g. town existing corridors and ensure the Good Growth (MTS Policy centres and Opportunity Areas at resilience of the public transport 21) Old Oak/Park Royal, Burnt network as population grows Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood and the Great West Corridor) to support mode shift towards active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport, and west and north west London’s continued economic growth

Strategic options 0.2.1.24 It has been noted that any preferred option must be compliant with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets Approach and the principles of Good Growth, while delivering a mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport. Furthermore, the preferred option must have the potential to unlock additional new homes, over and above those being unlocked by other committed schemes. 0.2.1.25 Seven strategic options have been considered: highway capacity schemes, walk/cycle schemes, enhanced bus priority, bus transit, light rail, heavy rail and Tube. Heavy rail has the greatest potential to deliver against the three objectives while ensuring alignment with policy.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 4: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of construction and operation Scheme Alignment Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Complexity of intervention with policy New Homes Orbital Public construction frameworks transport transport and operation connectivity capacity Heavy rail Yes High High High Medium (WLO) Underground Yes High High High Very High Bus transit Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium

Light rail Depends on High Medium High High scope Enhanced Yes No Medium Low Low bus priority Walk/cycle Yes Low Low No Low schemes Highway No N/A N/A N/A N/A capacity schemes

The case for the WLO . The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000 new homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was applied.

. The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office and 6,000 industrial jobs.

. The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to access growing employment hubs, such as Old Oak and the Great West Corridor

0.2.1.26 An 8tph option and 4tph sensitivity have been appraised in detail. The core 8tph option has been fully appraised in this SOBC, alongside a 4tph sensitivity. 0.2.1.27 The core option is a 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon and 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead service, providing an 8tph service through the central core as shown in Figure 6. The alternative service pattern is a 4tph Hounslow – Hendon service as shown in Figure 7. 0.2.1.28 The options considered would be refined further in future business cases.

Figure 6: WLO core option service pattern (8tph)

Figure 7: WLO alternative service pattern (4tph)

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.2.1.29 The WLO could enable the delivery of new homes and support employment growth. A development capacity study was commissioned to identify potential development and employment that could come forward as a result of the scheme9. An additional 8,800 residential units could be unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area, in compliance with the draft new London Plan and current local planning policy. Applying a flexible approach to planning, while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan, could unlock an additional c. 29,000 residential units, including through LPAs and the GLA agreeing to intensify the use of Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the redevelopment of social housing10.

Table 5: Summary of housing potential by LPA affected by WLO (SHLAA phase 3 onwards) Local Planning Authority Scenarios Baseline WLO dependent Maximum development Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711 Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22 Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609 Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672 Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240 Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489 OPDC11 19,383 19,383 19,383 Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143 Total 48,016 56,819 77,269 Source: SNC Lavalin 0.2.1.30 Similarly to housing, a new public transport link could support additional employment capacity along the route. 0.2.1.31 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)12. 0.2.1.32 By improving public transport connections, the WLO should also support employment, particularly in high value SIL areas and play an important role in maintaining town centre viability more generally across the sub-region. . The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas

9 A “bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development potential based on information from the London Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA). To help deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is also being strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a third per of growth in the form of small sites development. 10 Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide where applicable 11 Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport schemes 12 Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be served by Brentford and Syon Lane 13

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

. The WLO would provide a new direct link between town centres and employment clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area

. The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public transport journeys across west and north west London and beyond (including Heathrow and parts of Harrow) by linking eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic interchange

0.2.1.33 The WLO could address orbital connectivity barriers by bridging the public transport connectivity gap between north and west London, providing a direct service between the Hounslow Loop line and the North London line, and feeding the future strategic interchange at Old Oak. This could deliver journey time benefits of up to 24 minutes between Brent Cross West and Ealing Broadway, and up to 20 minutes between Hounslow and Wembley.

Figure 8: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)

to Watford, Stanmore and Luton Key

West London Orbital to Watford, Stanmore and Luton New interchanges London Underground Hendon Bakerloo enabling journeys Central Hendon District Jubilee Metropolitan between Brent Cross Piccadilly West Other Rail Brent Cross Thameslink, Jubilee London Overground West Elizabeth line Thameslink Great Western Railway and South Western Railway London Northwestern Railway High Speed 2 Bakerloo/Watford Neasden Neasden DC corridors and destinations to the

south, without Harlesden Harlesden needing to travel via Cricklewood Cricklewood central London to the West Midlands and beyond West to the West Hampstead Midlands and beyond West to Stratford Hampstead to Stratford

Willesden Junction Willesden Junction

to the West End, City and Canary to the West End, Greenford Wharf City and Canary Greenford Wharf

Old Oak to the West End, Old Oak to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary to the West End, and Reading Wharf to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary and Reading Wharf

Ealing Broadway Ealing Broadway

Hounslow Kew Bridge Hounslow Kew to Feltham Bridge and Staines to Clapham to Feltham Junction and and Staines to Clapham Waterloo Junction and Richmond Waterloo Richmond New direct link between Hounslow Loop and Old Oak, enabling journeys between Surrey and Old Oak/Park Royal.

. The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing congestion along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west London

. The WLO could alleviate crowding on congested rail and Tube lines

0.2.1.34 These journey time savings would make public transport more competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west London, supporting mode shift and helping to reduce congestion on the 14

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

road network and improve air quality. Furthermore, by providing competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO could also help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections of the radial public transport network. Delivering the WLO 0.2.1.35 A high level technical and operational assessment has been conducted on engineering complexity, constructability, challenges and risks. Although no ‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, this work has established some significant challenges to delivering the scheme that would need to be considered through further work. Further feasibility work would therefore be required. 0.2.1.36 Key operational and planning constraints relating to stations and capacity, construction, service trade-offs, rail freight, rail emissions and planning policy have been identified. 0.2.1.37 It is important to note that the continued development of Old Oak as a strategic interchange is key to realising many of the connectivity benefits of the WLO scheme.

0.3 Economic Case

0.3.1.1 Two service patterns have been appraised for the preferred heavy rail option: . 8tph core option; including 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon . 4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon 0.3.1.2 In addition to these two service patterns variants, two alternative land use scenarios have been modelled: . A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 8,800 homes) . A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 29,300 homes) 0.3.1.3 Total capital cost was calculated as £273m in 2017/18 prices and £179m over 60 years in 2010 prices and values. 0.3.1.4 Total annual operating costs were calculated as £26.3m and £13.9m in 2018/19 prices respectively for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns. 0.3.1.5 Revenue calculations for each service pattern and service pattern variant are set out in Table 6.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 6: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4pth sensitivity including assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices) 8tph Sensitivity: 4tph Alternative Land Use: Alternative Land Use: WLO dependent Dev Max Dev Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual passenger Revenue passenger Revenue passenger Revenue passenger Revenue journeys (2017 journeys (2017 journeys (2017 journeys (2017 prices) prices) prices) prices) West London 11.47 15.33 7.91 11.87 12.15 16.16 13.33 17.56 Orbital London -1.20 -1.27 -0.56 -0.58 -1.34 -1.43 -1.46 -1.57 Overground London -2.75 -7.34 -1.77 -4.69 -3.14 -7.92 -3.67 -9.18 Underground Crossrail -0.01 1.34 0.05 1.43 -0.08 1.25 -0.20 1.23 National Rail 0.22 -1.59 -0.24 -1.65 0.17 -1.62 0.14 -2.05 (other services) Bus -4.42 -4.21 -3.23 -3.23 -4.75 -4.48 -5.62 -5.02 Total 3.31 2.27 2.16 3.15 3.00 1.97 2.53 0.97 sub-total 3.08 3.86 2.41 4.80 2.83 3.59 2.38 3.02 (excluding franchised rail) Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph & 4tph vs Ref Case. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs Ref Case with alternative land use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per cent dependent development), the forecast revenue would be higher.

0.3.1.6 For the 8tph service pattern, whilst WLO services themselves are forecast to generate just over £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after consideration of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground services, is a much more modest £2m. 0.3.1.7 For the 4tph service pattern, net revenue is higher (£3m) despite the revenue directly on WLO services being over 20 per cent lower at just under £12m. This results from higher levels of abstraction from other modes (notably bus and London Underground) in the 8tph scenario. 0.3.1.8 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding changes in generalised time due to WLO were calculated and weighted by demand to represent the journey time benefits of WLO, as shown in Table 7. These include benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the Reference Case) and new (trips attracted to public transport by WLO) public transport users.

Table 7: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph scenario, 4tph sensitivity & alternative land use scenarios, Whole Model benefits WLO 8tph Sensitivity: WLO Alternative land use Alternative land use 4tph scenario : WLO 8tph + scenario: WLO 8tph + Max WLO dependent Dev Dev Existing 178,106 131,450 192,049 233,996 Users New 13,745 12,165 13,956 14,292 Users Total 191,850 143,614 206,005 248,289

Source: Railplan

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.3.1.9 In addition to these benefits, externalities resulting from an increase in rail passenger km have been considered and calculated. These impacts are small compared to other benefits. 0.3.1.10 It is anticipated that the scheme would provide the following non- monetised benefits: . Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme . Social impact, through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme . Supporting strategic transport planning and policy, in accordance with the London Plan . Environmental benefits, by encouraging mode shift from highway to public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance between home and job locations 0.3.1.11 Table 8 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the standard 8tph option, the 4tph sensitivity and the two alternative land use scenarios. In addition to these options and sensitivities, a further two cost sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns where capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. 0.3.1.12 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money. 0.3.1.13 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to refine the options and identify the preferred service pattern.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 8: Appraisal results (60 years) 8tph Alternative Alternative Cost Service Cost core land use: land use: sensitivity: level sensitivity: 8tph WLO 8tph Max Dev 8tph +£100m sensitivity: 4tph +£100m dependent scenario capital cost 4tph capital cost Dev scenario Costs and Revenues Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244 Road Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 cost saving Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309 Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553 Incremental Total 66 58 28 66 92 92 Revenue Total Financial Effect -698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461 (NFE)

Social Benefits Time Saving (£m) 977 1049 1264 977 731 731 Road Decongestion 67 65 54 67 70 70 (£m) Accidents (£m) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Greenhouse -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 emissions (£m) Local Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 (£m) Noise (£m) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Benefits (£m) 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799

Benefits Present Value of 765 765 765 830 488 553 Project Cost (£m) - including OBU Net Revenue (£m, 66 58 28 66 92 92 PV) Indirect Taxation 3 2 2 3 3 3 Loss (£m, PV) Present Value of 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799 Social Benefit (£m) - PVB Present Value of 1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802 Project Benefit (£m) PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461 NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341 BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0 Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario Note costs for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as interventions on both northern branches are included

0.4 Commercial Case

0.4.1.1 Assuming the project progresses and further design details are determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

and management and the approach to the financing of the project. All potential suppliers would be expected to be in compliance with the GLA Group Responsible Procurement Policy. 0.4.1.2 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by either TfL in the event that any future service were to be operated as part of the London Overground, or by Network Rail as the owner and provider of Great Britain’s National Rail infrastructure. 0.4.1.3 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground.

0.5 Financial Case

0.5.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the very early nature of this estimate, an 80 per cent adjustment was added to reach an estimate of £273m13. We have also considered a sensitivity which increases costs by a further £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Table 9 sets out the scheme costs in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost upon completion of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by WebTag guidance for the generation of the BCR) for both the core estimate and cost sensitivity.

Table 9: Capital costs Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn14 Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values Core estimate £273m £321m £179m Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m

0.5.1.2 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be balanced against revenue. 0.5.1.3 The following sources have been considered as options to fund the capital costs of this scheme: . Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned sites . Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new development unlocked by the scheme . Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions, workplace parking levies etc.

13 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP, Oct 2017 14 Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1 19

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

0.5.1.4 Although the assessed selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the scheme in present value terms, as shown in Figure 9, there would be a time lag in the availability of funding. Further work is therefore required to confirm and then secure a funding and financing solution for the scheme.

Figure 9: Cash/debt balance

400,000,000

350,000,000

300,000,000

250,000,000 £ 200,000,000

150,000,000

100,000,000

50,000,000

0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Debt balance Cash balance

Source: WLO Funding Study analysis.

0.5.1.5 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this scheme: . Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts, including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the affordability of the operating side of the scheme . Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the services in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable . Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non- farebox income 0.5.1.6 Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are outlined in Table 10. Station operating costs are not included in this analysis. Four new stations would require operation15, and assuming and indicative annual operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance, utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating costs.

15 Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be part of existing operational station by time of opening. 20

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 10: Annual operating costs 8tph scenario (2018/19 4tph sensitivity (2018/19 prices) prices) Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m Total £26.3m £13.8m Source: TfL

0.5.1.7 For the 8tph scenario, an annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset by revenue abstracted from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of £4m of net revenue. For the 4tph alternative net revenue is slightly higher (£5m) due to different levels of abstraction. 0.5.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to materially change the operating funding requirement. 0.5.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to passenger revenue of £4-5m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding requirement and need for significant operating subsidy. Options to remove any operating subsidy will need to be identified as part of future phases of scheme development work. The housing and commercial development stimulated by WLO could create an opportunity for increased passenger revenue that could be significant in reducing this. This would be a matter for further consideration in future stages of the project.

0.6 Management Case

0.6.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have a proven track record of developing, promoting and implementing significant infrastructure projects and securing consents required, and would ensure that strong project governance principles are followed. The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s established project assurance procedures.

0.6.1.2 The full involvement of the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and through the WLA would help minimise planning policy and other regulatory risks.

0.6.1.3 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has been identified that the principal consent required to authorise the works (including land acquisition) is likely to be a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO).

0.6.1.4 Table 11 outlines key indicative project milestones.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 11: Project milestones Milestone Description Date Further feasibility 2019-2021 Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022 Construction Early 2020s Operation  2026 for Phase 1  2029 for Phase 2

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

1 The Approach to the Business Case

1.1.1.1 The decision making process, of which this Strategic Outline Business Case forms part, usually takes place in three phases. Each phase includes the preparation of a business case followed by an investment decision point. Each business case builds upon that previously prepared. Evidence is reviewed to ensure that it remains up to date, accurate and relevant. The current Strategic Outline Business Case is in ‘Phase One” of this iterative process, with two further future stages of development to follow.

Figure 10: Business Case development phases

Source: DfT

1.1.1.2 The current ‘Phase One’ focuses on articulating the need for the intervention and summarising the range of options developed and considered, and: . is used to set out the strategic fit of the project with achieving relevant national and London Mayoral and TfL policy objectives; . confirms the strategic fit and the case for change; . scopes out the initial investment/intervention proposal; and . provides details of the project’s overall balance of benefits and costs against objectives

1.1.1.3 If the project were to progress, ‘Phase Two’ would reconfirm the conclusions from ‘Phase One’ and concentrate on a more detailed assessment of the options to find the best solution, culminating the preparation of an Outline Business Case, which would build on this Strategic Outline Business Case.

1.1.1.4 The final phase in the process, ‘Phase Three’, would result in the production of the Full Business Case – this would accompany the application for powers (including planning consent and land acquisition).

1.1.1.5 This work is being taken forward by TfL in conjunction with the West London Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) working through the West London Alliance (WLA) with detailed development of the Business Case being jointly overseen by TfL and WLA officers.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2 Strategic Case

2.1 Description

2.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to enhance public transport connectivity (in particular orbital connectivity) in west and north west London16.

2.1.1.2 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as Proposal 88:

“The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and Network Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground ‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.”

2.1.1.3 The role of the Strategic Case is to set out the need for investment for a transport intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes and employment space to be built, improve north-south orbital connectivity, and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport network.

2.1.1.4 The strategic case is structured into eight sections i. Description ii. Strategic context and the case for change, including the housing, connectivity and mode shift, and congestion and crowding challenges facing west London iii. Objectives for a transport intervention to address these challenges iv. Overview of existing arrangements and the limitations of the do-nothing option v. Scope and service requirements for a transport intervention vi. Strategic options, including a qualitative assessment of how these could meet the objectives vii. The case for the WLO option, demonstrating that the scheme would meet the objectives, aligns with national, regional and local policy, could be technically and operationally feasible, and could be delivered. viii. Overview of key constraints and dependencies

16 West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith & Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region. 24

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.2 Strategic context and the case for change

2.2.1 London is growing

2.2.1.1 London is the most productive economic region in the UK. Home to just over 13 per cent of the UK’s population, it generates around 23 per cent of the GVA and more than 25 per cent of national tax revenues17. London’s success means that more people want to live and work in the city. Population is forecast to grow from 8.7 million today to 10.8 million by 204118. This growth is expected to generate about 6 million additional trips each day by 2041.

2.2.1.2 Despite its success, London’s future international competitiveness is threatened by significant transport challenges and a severe housing shortage. The combination of population and employment growth means more public transport capacity is needed and more affordable, well- connected homes must be built. This needs to take place in the context of environmental challenges, notably London’s poor air quality and national commitments on carbon reduction. In order to sustain its success in the face of these challenges, London must become a city where walking, cycling and public transport becomes the most appealing and practical choice for many more journeys.

2.2.1.3 These challenges drive the aims of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). The MTS, adopted in March 2018, sets out the Mayor’s vision for transport in London to 2041. Integral to this vision is the aim to reduce car dependency in favour of walking, cycling and public transport use. This is stated in Policy 1, which sets the aim for 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made by these active, efficient and sustainable modes of travel by 2041. The Strategy is underpinned by the Healthy Streets Approach, which provides the framework for putting human health and experience at the heart of planning the city.

2.2.1.4 To accommodate the expected rate of population growth, the London Strategic Housing Market Assessment concludes that to address the projected growth in households, the Capital needs to deliver 66,000 new homes every year between now and 2041. In 2017/18 40,000 new homes were built. This is the highest rate of delivery for over 40 years, but is still well short of the number required to meet demand.

17 Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018 18 Ibid 25

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.2.1.5 These new homes will need to be delivered following the principles of Good Growth. This means ensuring that people living in new housing in central, inner and outer London have travel options other than to drive to the shops, to school or to work. Supporting Good Growth is critical to ensuring London becomes a city where walking, cycling and using public transport is the norm as its population increases to over 10 million.

2.2.2 West and north west London is the UK’s second largest economic powerhouse

. West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means it will have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment growth over the next 25 years

2.2.2.1 Home to major employment clusters including Heathrow, Park Royal and the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’, west and north west London is the most significant economic region outside of the CAZ, contributing 20 per cent to London’s GDP and having the highest productivity per worker out of any London sub-region19. West London’s employment clusters are home to agglomerations of major industries, including transport, logistics, pharma and media. The region acts as the UK’s global gateway through Heathrow, and will become London’s gateway to the north via HS2 at Old Oak Common.

2.2.2.2 The Park Royal/A40/Heathrow corridor has high demand for industrial land use, driven by warehousing and logistics, and airport-related activities. The London Industrial Land Demand study notes that LB Brent and LB Ealing have some of the highest levels of net demand for industrial land in London20. These boroughs have a high concentration of Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). This land is critical to the effective functioning to London’s economy as it can accommodate activities which, by virtue of their scale, noise, odours, dust, emissions, hours of operation and/or vehicle movements, can raise tensions with other land uses21.

19 West London Alliance – West London Economic Assessment 20 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ilds_final_report_june_2017.pdf 21 Draft new London Plan 26

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 11: Great West Corridor: ‘The Golden Mile’

2.2.2.3 West and north west London is also a region with significant growth potential. Some of London’s most significant Opportunity Areas, including Old Oak/Park Royal, which will experience transformational change over the next decade, are located in the region. In total eight of London’s Opportunity Areas are located in west and north west London22.

2.2.2.4 These characteristics mean west and north west London will play a critical role in delivering both the new jobs and homes London needs over the next 25 years. However, in order to fulfil its potential both for London and UK plc, it needs a transport network that can support population and employment growth in a sustainable way.

2.2.3 Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser development and employment growth in west and north west London

. New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and north west London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces

. Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable growth across the sub-region

2.2.3.1 The draft new London Plan and LPA local plans recognise the need to significantly increase housing delivery to meet the Capital’s needs. This is

22 Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Great West Corridor, Harrow & Wealdstone, Old Oak/Park Royal, Southall, Wembley, White City 27

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

a pressing issue for all of London but particularly in outer London where 63 per cent of London’s population growth to 2041 is expected23 and 55 per cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered24. Population growth is expected across outer London, with notable pressures between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow in west and north west London, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Population growth 2017 - 2041

High population growth is projected for outer London areas, notably around Old Oak, Brent Cross, Hendon and Wembley

2.2.3.2 Table 12 shows that each of the four boroughs along the arc from LB Barnet to LB Hounslow is projected to see population growth of between 60,000 and 100,000 in the period to 2041. These four boroughs collectively account for 14.5 per cent of London’s forecast population growth.

Table 12: Population forecasts – selected boroughs in west and north west London Borough 2016 Population 2041 Population % increase (projected) Barnet 386,200 485,800 26 % Brent 329,100 394,500 20 % Ealing 343,500 405,600 18 % Hounslow 271,500 331,200 22 % Source: GLA Central Trend 2016-based

2.2.3.3 The draft new London Plan proposes ambitious housing delivery targets for west and north west London, in particular for the five LPAs along the

23 GLA central projection (2016-base) 24 Draft new London Plan (2017) 28

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

arc stretching between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow, with ten year completion targets totalling 124,000 for these boroughs and the OPDC.

Table 13: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in west and north west London Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target Barnet 31,340 Brent 29,150 Ealing 28,070 Hounslow 21,820 OPDC 13,670 Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1)

2.2.3.4 High employee-job growth is also expected across west and north west London as shown in Figure 13. There is projected to be 146,000 new employee jobs in west and north west London by 2041. Figure 13: Employee jobs growth 2016 - 2041

High employee job growth in some outer London boroughs, particularly in the west and north west (LB Hounslow, LB Hillingdon, LB Barnet)

2.2.3.5 New public transport connections are important to make parts of London viable places to build homes and workspaces for the first time, or at increased densities. Enhanced public transport capacity can enable existing neighbourhoods and employment clusters to grow.

2.2.3.6 There are five Opportunity Areas lying along the arc between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow as shown in Figure 14. There are also designated Housing Zones25 at Wembley (2,840 new homes) and Hounslow Town

25 In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of 75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs. 29

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Centre (3,900 new homes) and a range of locally-identified and designated regeneration areas here. At present these areas are poorly connected to each other, meaning new residents would find it difficult to access most of the services, and employment and leisure opportunities in neighbouring areas, despite the relatively short distances between them. This could constrain growth in the longer-term, either due to new developments adding to traffic congestion, or sites becoming less attractive to developers due to poor connectivity.

Figure 14: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London An arc of growth potential stretches across west and north west London from Brent Cross towards Hounslow, incorporating Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Wembley, Old Oak/Park Royal and Great West Corridor Opportunity Areas.

2.2.3.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these areas will allow them to develop as an interconnected regional network, enabling new employment centres to be supported by nearby new residential neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This could reduce dependency on car travel within the sub-region, and pressure on heavily used radial rail links to central London. This will help to deliver new homes and develop the Opportunity Areas, Home Zones and local regeneration priority areas to their full potential and help to drive economic growth across the sub-region.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.2.3.8 Between these Opportunity Areas there are Metropolitan town centres at Ealing and Hounslow, the Major town centre of Wembley, District town centres at Cricklewood, Harlesden, Neasden, Acton and Brentford, London’s largest area of concentrated industrial activity at Park Royal, and high volumes of transport and logistics, and creative, media and broadcasting jobs along the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’. While employment growth will continue to be highest in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), high growth in employee jobs is also forecast for several west and north west London boroughs and much of this will take place in these town centres and employment clusters. This growth relies on maintaining and improving a well-connected local and sub-regional transport network.

2.2.3.9 The success of these regional employment centres depends on easy access to employees and customers. It is therefore vital that residents from across the sub-region can access these centres using active, efficient and sustainable modes, and that well-connected new homes are delivered across the sub-region for the employees and customers who will sustain these centres’ continued economic success.

2.2.4 Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north west London

. New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Burnt Oak/Colindale Opportunity Areas and the Old Oak/Park Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas, particularly as these places experience transformational growth

. Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters (including the Great West Corridor) in LB Hounslow and areas to the north, including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area, to ensure these areas can continue to grow sustainably

Mode share and connectivity context 2.2.4.1 Within outer London, around 60 per cent of trips are made by walking, cycling and public transport. In order to achieve the MTS mode shift aim, this will need to rise to 75 per cent in the context of 1 million additional trips being made every day.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.2.4.2 70 per cent of these car trips are short enough to feasibly be switched to walking, cycling or public transport26, but such a switch is dependent on new or more appealing alternatives being provided. Therefore, providing an attractive public transport alternative for trips currently made by car will be crucial to achieving these aims. This means improving links to outer London town centres and ensuring new developments are designed and connected in a way that reduces the need to travel by car. Figure 15: Mode shares for travel within and between central, inner, outer and outside London

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018

2.2.4.3 As shown in Table 14, car ownership in west London is the second highest out of London’s five sub-regions27. Car ownership is associated with lower sustainable mode share28. Car dependency means the sub-region has the second lowest active, efficient and sustainable mode share in London, at only 57 per cent.

Table 14: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by TfL sub-region Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share

South 70% 54% West 61% 57% North 59% 58% East 56% 63% Central 37% 83% Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17)

2.2.4.4 In order to achieve the MTS overall aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable modes, boroughs across west and north west London must see significant mode shift over the next two decades, as shown in Table 15. This will necessitate improved public

26 LTDS 2014/15 – 2016/17 27 The TfL West London sub-region comprises LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith and Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon and LB Hounslow. LB Barnet is in the North London sub-region. 28 LTDS 32

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

transport connectivity throughout the entire sub-region, so that journey times are more competitive versus the car.

Table 15: Walking, cycling and public transport % mode share by borough resident based on average daily trips Borough Observed Trajectory 2012/13 to 2013/14 to 2014/15 to 2021 2041 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Hammersmith & 75 78 81 82 89 Fulham Barnet 50 52 55 59 72 Brent 62 62 65 66 78 Ealing 62 62 63 63 76 Harrow 48 48 48 50 64 Hillingdon 43 41 43 44 56 Hounslow 55 53 56 59 71 Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17), TfL Strategic Models (consistent with MTS evidence base 2018)

2.2.4.5 The opening of the Elizabeth line will bring about a step-change improvement in radial connectivity between west London and the CAZ and Isle of Dogs. Associated changes to the bus network will improve links to Elizabeth line stations, thereby securing an improvement in connectivity for origin-destination pairs within the sub-region with a radial element. However north-south connectivity between town centres in the north of the sub-region such as Wembley and Brent Cross, and those in the south such as Hounslow, will not benefit in as significant a way. Similarly, while Ealing and Acton will both benefit greatly from improved radial connectivity through the CAZ and beyond, the Elizabeth line will not bring any appreciable journey time benefits for trips from these town centres to less distant District town centres such as Neasden and Brent Cross.

2.2.4.6 Comparing current journey times with forecast journey times when committed improvements are delivered shows that the north-south corridor will see little improvement at either end (Figure 16).

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 16: Public transport journey time change Harlesden and Brentford town centres (2031)

2.2.4.7 While committed schemes will improve connectivity within the sub-region, particularly for radial trips, they will not address critical north-south orbital connectivity challenges. This includes issues relating to severance caused by roads and rail lines, gaps in the public transport network, and limited interchange opportunities. Broadly this can be broken down into three specific connectivity challenges:

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

. Connectivity between west and north west London, relating to severance and gaps in the public transport network . Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop and North London line, relating to severance and limited interchange opportunities . Connectivity from radial corridors to destinations in the wider sub- region, relating to gaps in the public transport network and limited interchange opportunities

Connectivity between west and north west London

2.2.4.8 At the northern end of the corridor, there is a gap in orbital public transport provision between west London and north west London principally between LB Barnet and the rest of west London. This gap in orbital public transport provision stretches across LB Brent and the M1 into LB Barnet, where the only public transport option available is the bus.

2.2.4.9 Figure 17 shows how public transport journey times deteriorate rapidly when moving across this corridor. From Hendon, journey times to Acton are comparable to those to Stratford, despite the latter being considerably further away. Similarly from Harlesden, journey times to the Brent Cross area are comparable to those to Southfields, despite the latter being twice the distance and south of the River Thames.

2.2.4.10 These discrepancies can be partly explained by the existence of orbital rail links, such as the North London Line, Gospel Oak – Barking Line and West London Line which demonstrates the impact of orbital rail on public transport connectivity.

2.2.4.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas where significant housing growth is expected in north London, particularly around Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment centre at Old Oak/Park Royal. Growth in these areas could be complementary, with significant housing growth expected in the former, and employment growth in the latter. As a result, a strong pull may emerge between the locations. It is therefore vital that a competitive public transport option is provided to ensure that new trips are made by active, efficient and sustainable modes, and maximise the social and economic benefits of this growth.

2.2.4.12 Poor connectivity between Old Oak and parts of north west London will also limit its potential to be a gateway station for north west London when HS2 is delivered, forcing customers to travel to Euston instead. This will increase pressure on both Euston station itself, and the lines serving it. Similarly, customers travelling by public transport towards Heathrow from locations such as Brent Cross/Cricklewood would need to travel via central 35

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

London to access the Elizabeth line, which is less direct and adds further pressure onto radial routes into central London. 2.2.4.13 Furthermore, existing residents in north London currently have poor access to the shopping and leisure opportunities at Wembley and residents of west London have poor access to the shopping and leisure opportunities at Brent Cross. This limits choice for residents and access to customers and employees for businesses in both locations. Figure 17: Journey times by public transport from Hendon and Harlesden town centres

Stratford It takes the same time Acton to travel from Hendon to Acton (9.5km) as it does to Stratford (16 km)

Brent Cross

It takes the same time to travel from Harlesden to Brent Cross (5km) as it does to Southfields (10km)

Southfields

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Connectivity between Hounslow Loop and North London line

2.2.4.14 At the southern end of the corridor, orbital connectivity is hindered by poor interchange options. Interchange options between radial routes, such as the Hounslow Loop Line, and existing orbital rail such as the North London Line are limited. This forces passengers to travel out of their way to interchange at Clapham Junction or Richmond, or make additional bus stages to connect to the London Overground network in the Kew area, as demonstrated by Figure 18.

Figure 18: Route options for customers travelling north from Hounslow Loop area

In the absence of direct interchange to the North London Line, passengers beginning their journeys at stations between Hounslow and Brentford must either back-track to Richmond or take a bus to Gunnersbury to access a north-south rail link

Passengers east of Gunnersbury must back-track to Clapham Junction as there are no bus alternatives

Source: TfL

2.2.4.15 This limits public transport connectivity to the emerging employment hubs at Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor. Residents of LB Hounslow in particular would have to make indirect journeys to access employment opportunities at Old Oak/Park Royal by public transport, while residents in growing neighbourhoods further north such as North Acton would not have competitive public transport options to access jobs in the nearby Great West Corridor. This could have negative implications for mode share as these employment centres grow, or act as a brake on development if businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers and employees.

2.2.4.16 Figure 19 shows that poor north-south orbital connectivity similarly creates a barrier to movement on the step-free network. The requirement 37

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

to make complicated interchanges, in particular for journeys from the area served by the Hounslow Loop Line to the north of the sub-region which often requires rail-bus-rail combinations, also acts as a barrier to travel. For trips from Brentford towards LB Brent and LB Barnet, where journey times are already comparatively slow, journey times on the step-free network are around 10 minutes slower.

Figure 19: Public transport step-free journey time difference from Brentford town centre

Connectivity between radial corridors and the wider sub-region

2.2.4.17 For longer-distance trips within the sub-region, the public transport network is limited by a lack of orbital public transport provision to link the high-capacity radial lines together, meaning the public transport operates as a series of corridors oriented towards central London rather than a sub- regional system. For longer-distance trips between places on different radial corridors (e.g. Harrow to Great West Corridor, or Edgware to Park Royal), the only public transport option might be to travel via central London and then backtrack, or to combine multiple indirect bus and Tube journeys. This in turn leads to more people either choosing to travel by car, or being unable to make the journey (and therefore unable to access the full array of employment, leisure and social opportunities in the wider sub- region).

2.2.4.18 Poor orbital public transport connectivity also increases car dependency for non-London originating trips. North and west London boroughs have some of the highest volumes of in-commuting outside of central London.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

LB Hounslow attracts 26,000 in-commuters from the Wider South East, comparable to LB Islington. LB Barnet attracts over 15,000 in-commuters from the Wider South East, more than LB Lambeth in central London29.

2.2.4.19 The car is dominant for these trips. Rail can usually only compete where origin and destination are directly served, as otherwise most trips would require interchange at a central London terminus.

2.2.4.20 For these types of trip to be competitive by public transport, existing high frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back- track via central London. This is critical to ensure employment growth in the sub-region does not exacerbate congestion, and to ensure broader access to employment, leisure and social opportunities for those who rely on public transport to get around.

2.2.5 Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to address congestion and crowding in west and north west London . A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to reduce congestion on the road network in west and north west London

. Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate pressure on the Piccadilly line and sections of the North and West London lines

2.2.5.1 As a result of poor orbital connectivity, many north-south movements in north west London must be made by car, even for relatively short journeys. A consequence of this is high levels of congestion, particularly where there are gaps in the public transport network.

2.2.5.2 There are only six north-south road crossings between Willesden Junction and Harrow, a distance of over 8km. Between them these routes must cater for over 200,000 motor vehicle movements every day30. Limited north-south routes create bottlenecks with high levels of delay around the North Circular/A5 and Harlesden, even in the inter-peak as shown in Figure 20.

2.2.5.3 Further south, average delay is significant in Acton and between Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge, adding to journey times for trips between LB Hounslow and the central and northern parts of the sub-region, as shown in Figure 21, and the A406 North Circular Road between Chiswick

29 Census 2011 30 TfL Radial Screenline (2015) 39

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been reported as the most congested in the UK.31 Figure 20: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden - Hendon) High delay around Harlesden town centre and between Harlesden and Brent Cross along A406

High delay between Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge

31 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799 40

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.2.5.4 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability, which makes public transport a less attractive option. This in turn encourages greater car dependency. It also affects overall public transport resource requirements, as more buses are required to maintain route frequency.

2.2.5.5 Congestion also causes associated environmental, social and economic disbenefits. Residents across west London, particularly those living near major roads, experience noise and air quality disbenefits. Longer journey times carry an economic cost, as does the impact of congestion on the efficiency of freight.

2.2.5.6 Figure 22 shows that, with only committed investment, crowding on radial corridors including the District and Piccadilly lines, as well as sections of the orbital North and West London lines, will become severe in the future. This will add further barriers to orbital travel by public transport and could constrain sustainable housing and employment growth in Opportunity Areas, Housing Zones and locally-identified growth and regeneration areas across the sub-region. Figure 22: Crowding on the rail and Tube network, 2041, morning peak, with only committed investment Crowding forecast to be severe on Piccadilly and District line radials, and sections of the North and West London lines

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)

2.2.5.7 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding. The addition of new north-south capacity and connectivity would also enable 41

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

many trips to be made by alternative routes that avoid central London. This could help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of the most congested parts of the network, strengthening the resilience of the transport network as a whole.

2.2.5.8 Furthermore, by improving orbital public transport connectivity, more trips would become competitive by public transport in the first place, resulting in fewer car trips and reduced congestion. This would deliver journey time benefits for bus passengers and noise and air quality benefits for residents.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria 2.3.1.1 The challenges outlined above highlight the need for a transport intervention in west and north west London. In response, TfL and the West London Alliance (WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in Table 16.

Table 16: Scheme objectives

Objectives Main benefits by stakeholder Contribution towards group national and regional policy

Objective A – New homes & jobs Londoners Supports National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) Enable the delivery of new homes and Additional new homes and objectives of delivering a jobs in west and north west London in jobs enabled sufficient supply of homes line with the principles of Good Growth and supporting sustainable Residents (MTS Policy 21) economic growth fit for the st Reduced traffic congestion 21 century associated with growth Supports Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) Policy 21 and Draft new London Plan policies GG2, GG4, GG5, SD1 & T2

Objective B – Orbital transport Residents Supports NPPF objectives connectivity of building a strong, Journey time benefits to key competitive economy, Enhance orbital public transport destinations; Improved ensuring the vitality of town connectivity to and between major trip connectivity to jobs; Reduced centres and promoting attractors in west and north west traffic congestion; Improved air sustainable transport London (e.g. town centres and quality; Health benefits Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Supports MTS Policies 1 & Royal, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Business 14, Draft new London Plan Cross/Cricklewood and the Great West Policy GG2 and the London Improved access to Corridor) to support mode shift towards Environment Strategy customers/clients; Economic active, efficient and sustainable modes growth of transport, and west and north west Delivers MTS Proposal 88 London’s continued economic growth and supports MTS Proposal 67

Objective C – Public transport Passengers Supports NPPF objective of capacity promoting sustainable Crowding benefits; Improved transport Enhance public transport capacity in journey options west and north west London to relieve Supports MTS Policy 16 pressure on existing corridors and ensure the resilience of the public transport network as population grows

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs 2.4.1.1 As outlined in Section 2.2 above, the current situation (do-nothing option) would result in continued poor orbital connectivity in west and north west London as committed schemes are primarily radially focussed. This could act as a constraint on delivering the homes needed to accommodate the growing population or the commercial development needed to accommodate employment growth. It could also lead to detrimental unintended consequences of growth such as highway congestion on non- radial links, and increasing pressure on a public transport network that is already under strain.

2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements 2.5.1.1 When addressing the objectives outlined in Section 2.3, it has been assumed that any preferred option must be compliant with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets Approach and the principles of Good Growth while delivering a mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes. It must also support the delivery of LPA local plans and other policies which have similar objectives.

2.5.1.2 Furthermore, the preferred option must have the potential to deliver on shared Mayoral/West London LPA objectives by unlocking additional new homes, over and above those being unlocked by committed schemes.

2.6 Strategic Options 2.6.1 Strategic Options overview

2.6.1.1 The West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints study32, commissioned by the West London Alliance, identified the costs of constraints to the sub-regional economy and identified a long-list of 28 potential scheme interventions to address the major infrastructure constraints across the sub-region under the themes of highway network enhancements (7 schemes), bus network enhancements (5 schemes), and rail network enhancements (16 schemes). Each potential intervention was appraised against five policy criteria (economic impact, orbital connectivity, growth area connectivity, physical deliverability, value for money) and whether it was dependent on or complementary to another intervention. This appraisal was used to prioritise the interventions to provide a short-list of those that were considered most likely to support the future growth of the west London sub-region and to be realistically deliverable. Schemes

32 West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints – Outcomes Report (West London Alliance, 2017) 44

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

were then grouped into packages and prioritised as shown in Table 17 below.

Table 17: West London Transport packages (WLA)

Source: West London Alliance (2017)

2.6.1.2 The appraisal concluded that the package P3 (consisting of re-introducing passenger services on the Dudding Hill Rail Line, and associated junction improvements at Neasden and Acton East), was the highest priority.

2.6.1.3 As this appraisal was conducted in a different policy context (the new MTS was adopted in March 2018), six types of intervention which could help to address the orbital connectivity, growth and capacity challenges in west London outlined above have been reconsidered below.

2.6.2 Highway capacity schemes

2.6.2.1 Orbital highway capacity schemes would not deliver mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes in line with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. They also scored relatively poorly in the WLA assessment. For these reasons they are not considered further.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.6.3 Walk/cycle schemes 2.6.3.1 Active travel aligns strongly with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and compares strongly against other modes for shorter trips. At the London- wide level for trips of less than 2km there are more walk trips than car- driver trips and more cycle trips than rail trips33. Addressing the severance caused by rail lines and the A40 would enable more north-south trips to be made by walking and cycling in the sub-region.

2.6.3.2 For longer trips, active travel alone is unlikely to be competitive versus the car. Furthermore, active travel schemes cannot by themselves unlock new homes at the same scale as public transport schemes, and would not enhance public transport capacity in the sub-region. Nevertheless, active travel would still have a supporting role in any public transport intervention, as all public transport journeys require access and egress to/from the public transport service. It is assumed that active travel would play that supporting role in the public transport options considered below.

2.6.4 Enhanced bus priority 2.6.4.1 A combination of bus lanes, bus gates and parking restrictions could deliver journey time savings for public transport passengers. Existing bus priority in the area is mostly along radial routes as shown in Figure 23.

2.6.4.2 TfL and WestTrans have investigated enhanced bus priority for the corridor between Ealing and Brent Cross, which would address some of the connectivity challenges in the north-eastern part of the sub-region, notably orbital severance across LB Brent.

2.6.4.3 Light-touch bus priority would be relatively low cost and benefits would be spread across all bus journeys operating along affected links. Some highway capacity trade-offs would be required. Journey time and connectivity benefits arising from individual interventions would be felt over a relatively small area, with longer journeys still requiring interchange to existing orbital rail services for part of the journey.

2.6.4.4 At the London-wide level, bus is the most popular mode of public transport for trips up to 5km, but is overtaken by rail for longer trips34. Key origin- destination (OD) pairs exceeding this distance within the sub-region include Brent Cross – Ealing (7.5km) and Brentford (for Great West Corridor) to Old Oak (6.5km). It is unlikely that bus priority would enable these OD pairs to be served competitively.

33 LTDS 34 Ibid 46

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 23: Bus lanes in west and north west London

The corridor is served by a dense network of over 70 bus routes in total, many of which could benefit from enhanced bus priority at key pinch points. Existing bus lanes are primarily radially focused, providing limited journey time benefits for north- south movements.

2.6.4.5 While enhanced bus priority could benefit orbital connectivity at a local level, it would not by itself unlock new homes and commercial development and would have a limited impact on public transport capacity more generally.

2.6.5 Bus transit 2.6.5.1 A combination of more significant interventions on the road network including reallocation of roadspace to bus passengers and/or repurposing lightly used rail lines could allow for the development of bus transit, supported by express (limited stop) purpose designed bus services.

2.6.5.2 Bus transit delivers superior journey time benefits to light-touch bus priority measures while maintaining the service planning flexibility of the bus. Additionally, due to the large amounts of segregation along the route, it also improves reliability.

2.6.5.3 Due to the flexibility of a bus transit service, this public transport intervention could connect town centres across west London, such as Ealing, Wembley and Brent. Figure 24 illustrates potential bus transit corridors between Brent Cross, Wembley, Ealing and Gunnersbury.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Highway capacity trade-offs would be required to deliver this, and longer journeys would require interchange to existing rail services.

2.6.5.4 Bus transit would benefit orbital connectivity, and could help unlock some new homes and employment capacity by improving public transport capacity. Although benefits delivered through a transit solution could be significant, it is likely that they would be lower than those delivered by a rail option.

Figure 24: Potential bus transit corridors (Brent Cross – Wembley – Ealing – Gunnersbury) A bus transit scheme could link Brent to Ealing via Wembley, with an option to extend to Gunnersbury and Kew to connect with the North London Line and Hounslow Loop.

2.6.5.5 The option outlined above would directly connect several town centres and growth areas in the corridor. Additionally, as the route of the transit has more flexibility in comparison to a rail option, this route can also serve the Wembley Opportunity Area directly. A notable weakness of this option is the failure to connect directly to Old Oak, the single biggest Opportunity Area in west and north west London, and the resulting network effect of this emerging strategic interchange. This would limit the potential to spread connectivity benefits across the wider sub-region. Any direct connection to Old Oak would increase the length of the route, meaning less direct and less competitive journey times for other origin-destination pairs.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.6.5.6 TfL has also considered conceptual options for bus transit and related interventions along the A4 between Chiswick Roundabout and Gillette Corner. While this would enhance connectivity to the Great West Corridor, its impact on orbital connectivity would be more limited as interchange to the North London line would be required at South Acton or Gunnersbury for longer journeys.

2.6.5.7 A bus transit solution would bring benefits to the area by helping to improve the reliability and quality of orbital travel in west London, however due to the quantum of new homes envisaged for the region, bus transit alone cannot provide sufficient capacity. Bus transit would also offer less attractive journey times than rail over longer distances in this context. Nevertheless, the benefits of bus services are recognised and both improved bus priority and implementation of bus transit could be included in a wider package of transport improvements.

2.6.6 Light rail 2.6.6.1 Light rail could be introduced using existing lightly used rail freight alignments such as the Dudding Hill line as shown in Figure 25.

2.6.6.2 This would have an impact on existing freight services. Freight trains can share track with passenger trams under very limited circumstances, but there are onerous safety consideration to be addressed, which it may not be possible to satisfactorily overcome. The MTS emphasises the need for careful planning to make best use of rail capacity for both passenger and freight services and the scope of a light rail scheme would need to be defined to align with this.

2.6.6.3 A tram option would also require either sharing or reallocating street space to bring services into the heart of town centres and growth areas. If this cannot be achieved, journeys to Wembley and Ealing would require interchange at Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. Extending services south towards the Great West Corridor would encounter similar constraints to co- running with heavy rail, but on a much busier section of track. This would deliver orbital connectivity benefits, help to unlock new homes and enhance public transport capacity, but requires significant delivery challenges to be overcome.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 25: Dudding Hill line

The Dudding Hill line, converted to a tramway, would form the core of a tram network linking Brent Cross, Wembley and Old Oak/Park Royal.

Figure 26: Dudding Hill Junction

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.6.7 Heavy rail 2.6.7.1 The West London Alliance identified several freight and disused rail lines in the sub-region that could, theoretically, facilitate alternative passenger service routes. The Dudding Hill line performed strongest of these in terms of orbital connectivity and Opportunity Area connectivity as it bridges the orbital public transport connectivity gap across between LB Ealing and LB Barnet (across LB Brent), and directly connects the Opportunity Area at Brent Cross/Cricklewood with Old Oak and points to the south. It is therefore considered as a central component of the heavy rail option below.

2.6.7.2 The heavy rail option would involve using existing orbital passenger corridors (part of the London Overground network), combined with lightly used freight lines (Dudding Hill line) to create a continuous rail link from the north eastern part of the sub-region to the south. This would form the West London Orbital line (WLO), running from the Thameslink corridor in the Brent Cross/Cricklewood area to the Hounslow Loop, via the Dudding Hill line and the North London line. This option would use existing infrastructure and link into the existing London Overground network.

Figure 27: West London Orbital line (as described in MTS 2018) The West London Orbital line would run from the Thameslink corridor in the Brent Cross/Cricklewood area to the Hounslow Loop, via the Dudding Hill line and the North London line.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 28: Dudding Hill line at Neasden

2.6.7.3 The alignment would directly connect three Opportunity Areas at Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor. Connections to Wembley and Ealing would be indirect but journey times would still be competitive via interchange to high frequency rail services at Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. The retention of the Dudding Hill line as a heavy rail line avoids the negative implications for freight associated with the light rail option while delivering additional journey time benefits over bus schemes, enabling connectivity benefits to be realised over a wider area.

2.6.7.4 The WLO scheme has been identified in the MTS as having the potential to unlock new homes and jobs in west London. It would bring orbital connectivity benefits across a wide area and would significantly enhance public transport capacity in the sub-region. The scheme could also be delivered using existing infrastructure across several sections based on similar principles to those used in successful development of much of the Overground network.

2.6.7.5 The scheme would attract significant stakeholder support. LPAs have already expressed support for the scheme during the consultation on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.6.8 Underground 2.6.8.1 A north-south London Underground extension between Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow could cover a similar geographic area to the heavy rail option, but would be less constrained by existing infrastructure and therefore could run closer to town centres along the corridor.

2.6.8.2 A London Underground scheme would enable higher frequencies, and therefore deliver enhanced capacity and connectivity benefits vis-à-vis the heavy rail option. However this would require considerably higher capital spend and raise more physical deliverability challenges than the heavy rail or bus options.

Figure 29: Indicative corridor for London Underground extension between Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow

2.6.9 Qualitative assessment 2.6.9.1 Table 18 qualitatively assesses each of the potential schemes against national, regional and local policy and indicates that most would be in alignment. Light Rail would only align if the scope included maintaining freight paths on shared sections of track. Highway capacity schemes would not align with transport or planning policy. 53

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 18: Alignment of options with national, regional and local policy Scheme National Planning Mayor’s Draft new London Local planning intervention Policy Framework Transport Plan policy Strategy

Heavy rail Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the LPA local plans and homes, building a (mode shift), 16 best use of land), OAPFs, including strong, competitive (rail capacity) & GG4 (delivering the Principle T1 (rail & economy, ensuring the 21 (Good homes Londoners underground) of Old vitality of town centres Growth). need) & T1 Oak Park Royal and promoting (strategic approach OAPF. sustainable transport. Delivers to transport). proposal 88 (West London Orbital)

Underground Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the local plans and homes, building a (mode shift), 16 best use of land), OAPFs. strong, competitive (rail capacity) & GG4 (delivering the economy, ensuring the 21 (Good homes Londoners vitality of town centres Growth). need) & T1 and promoting (strategic approach sustainable transport. to transport).

Bus transit Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the local plans and homes, building a (mode shift), 15 best use of land), OAPFs, including strong, competitive (transform the GG4 (delivering the Principle T5 (buses) of economy, ensuring the bus network) & homes Londoners Old Oak Park Royal vitality of town centres 21 (Good need) & T1 OAPF (pending final and promoting Growth). (strategic approach alignment). sustainable transport. to transport).

Light rail Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the local plans and homes, building a (mode shift) & best use of land), OAPFs. strong, competitive 21 (Good GG4 (delivering the economy, ensuring the Growth). homes Londoners vitality of town centres need) & T1 and promoting Potential (strategic approach sustainable transport. conflict with to transport). Proposal 18 (rail freight).

Enhanced bus Supports building a Aligns with Supports Policy T1 Aligns with priorities in priority strong, competitive Policies 1 (strategic approach local plans and economy, ensuring the (mode shift), 15 to transport). OAPFs, including vitality of town centres (transform the Principle T5 (buses) of and promoting bus network) & Old Oak Park Royal sustainable transport. 21 (Good OAPF. Growth).

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Scheme National Planning Mayor’s Draft new London Local planning intervention Policy Framework Transport Plan policy Strategy

Walk/cycle Supports, ensuring the Aligns with Supports Policy T1 Aligns with priorities in schemes vitality of town centres Policies 1 (strategic approach local plans and and promoting (mode shift), 2 to transport) & T5 OAPFs, including sustainable transport. (walking and (cycling). Principle T6 (walking cycling) & 21 and cycling) of Old (Good Growth). Oak Park Royal OAPF.

Highway Does not promote Does not align Does not align with Aligns with Principle capacity sustainable transport. with Policy 1 Policy T1 (strategic T2 (roads) of Old Oak schemes (mode shift). approach to Park Royal OAPF but transport). does not align with Not aligned with local plan priorities of Healthy Streets promoting sustainable Approach. travel.

2.6.9.2 Table 19 summarises the policy appraisal above and further appraises against each of the three schemes, objectives and complexity of construction and operation.

2.6.9.3 The qualitative assessment is relative. The performance of each option is considered relative to all other options. Where an option performs strongly relative to the alternatives, it is marked in green. Where it performs poorly relative to the alternatives, it is marked in red.

2.6.9.4 Qualitatively assessing each of the potential schemes against the objectives indicates that heavy rail has the greatest potential. Underground performs strongly against the objectives but would have very high complexity of construction and operation. Similarly light rail performs strongly against the objectives but would be challenging to deliver in a way that aligns with policy and would have high complexity of construction and operation. Bus transit could be a lower cost alternative to heavy rail, as it would deliver moderate benefits against all objectives.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 19: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of construction and operation

Scheme Alignment with Objective A: New homes Objective B: Orbital transport Objective C: Public Complexity of construction and intervention policy and jobs connectivity transport capacity operation frameworks Heavy rail (WLO) Yes High High High Medium Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides high capacity service Uses existing infrastructure high capacity Oak and Brent Cross Some junction works required Links Hounslow Loop to North London Shared running with other passenger rail line and Old Oak and freight services Underground Yes High High High Very High Delivers new connectivity at Provides new north-south connection Provides high capacity service Entirely new infrastructure high capacity along the full length of the corridor Significant tunnelling required Could serve town centres directly Bus transit Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides medium capacity Requires reallocation of road-space lower capacity than rail Oak and Brent Cross, but with slower service Requires balancing the needs of journey times than rail Less likely than rail to attract pedestrians, cyclists and bus users Could serve town centres directly customer from crowded radial rail routes Light rail Depends on High Medium High High scope Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides high capacity service Requires trams and trains to share track Potential conflict high capacity Oak and Brent Cross Requires reallocation of road-space with MTS Potential to improve connectivity south Proposal 18 of Old Oak, depending on route Enhanced bus Yes Low Medium Low Low priority Unlikely to deliver new Improves speeds and reliability, but Limited scope to provide Requires reallocation of road-space, but at connectivity and capacity with slower journey times than rail additional capacity a lower level of intervention than bus transit needed to unlock full housing Requires balancing the needs of potential pedestrian, cyclists and bus users Walk/cycle Yes Low Low No Low schemes While walking and cycling has Does not deliver connectivity for longer Does not provide new public Requires reallocation of road-space, but in a role in helping to optimise journeys transport capacity most cases this could be at a lower level of densities, it would be unlikely intervention than for bus schemes to do so at the same level as Requires balancing the needs of other options in this context pedestrians, cyclists and bus users Highway No N/A N/A N/A N/A capacity schemes

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO) 2.7.1 WLO scheme options 2.7.1.1 The WLO scheme is a heavy rail scheme consisting of a central core between South Acton and Neasden, with two branch options at either end, to Hendon/West Hampstead in the north, and to Hounslow/Kew Bridge in the south.

2.7.1.2 A ‘core’ 8tph option and a 4tph alternative sensitivity have been fully appraised in the Economic Case.

Figure 30: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)

2.7.1.3 The core option is a service of 4tph Kew Bridge - Hendon and 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead, meaning 8tph through the central core as shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: WLO core option service pattern

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.1.4 A second more limited service was also considered, consisting of a 4tph service Hounslow - Hendon only (Figure 32).

Figure 32: WLO 4tph sensitivity service pattern

2.7.1.5 In addition to the core option and 4tph sensitivity, one alternative 8tph service pattern ( 4tph Kew Bridge – West Hampstead and 4tph Hounslow – Hendon), three alternative 4tph combinations (Kew Bridge - Hendon, Hounslow – West Hampstead, Kew Bridge – West Hampstead), and three truncated alignments (Hounslow – Brent Cross West, Lionel Road - Hendon, Brentford - Hendon) were also modelled in Railplan.

2.7.1.6 Two alternative land use scenarios (see 2.7.2), reflecting the development which could be supported by the WLO, were also modelled.

2.7.1.7 The options considered may be refined further in future business cases.

2.7.2 The WLO scheme could enable the delivery of new homes . The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000 new homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was applied, while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan.

2.7.2.1 A development capacity study was commissioned to support this Business Case. This work is an independent study undertaken by a consultant for TfL to identify potential development and employment that could come forward as a result of the scheme.

2.7.2.2 In assessing development potential, the study considered locations within a 1km catchment of a station (corresponding to approximately 10-minute walk) to reflect potential impacts of the scheme on housing delivery. A “bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development potential based on information from the London Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA)35. The study considered sites that could be delivered from SHLAA Phase 3 onwards (i.e. from 2024).

2.7.2.3 The study sets out three scenarios as shown in Table 20.

35 To help deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is also being strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a third of growth in the form of small sites development. 58

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 20: Development Capacity Study scenarios Scenario 1: “without Scenario 2: WLO- Scenario 3: Maximum development scheme” dependent potential uplift This scenario identifies This scenario identifies the This scenario identifies the additional the development that development that could development that could be unlocked would occur in each potentially be unlocked as a as a result of the WLO scheme should location regardless of result of the WLO. This a more flexible approach to planning whether the WLO scenario is compliant with the be applied. This scenario is still fully scheme occurs or not, draft new London Plan and compliant with the draft new London assuming sites with Local Planning Authorities’ Plan. higher degree of policies. certainty will come Sites identified in scenario 2 are taken forward. Sites with ‘approval’ are forward into this scenario. In addition, assumed to come forward at new sites are included: Sites with ‘approval’ and the level assumed in the . Sites identified as unsuitable in those classified as SHLAA (no additional uplift the SHLAA because they are SIL ‘allocated’ and ‘potential from the WLO) as these sites or LSIS (assuming no net loss of development’ were would come forward prior to employment floorspace, and fully considered for this the scheme being delivered. compliant with GLA standard for category. SIL intensification/increase)36 Sites classified as ‘allocated’ Sites classified as and ‘potential development’ . Sites identified as ‘low probability’ ‘excluded’, ‘to be were assumed to benefit from because they are social housing deleted’, ‘unsuitable’ and improved connectivity as a or have challenges relating to 37 ‘low probability’ were not result of the WLO, and multiple ownerships included, as SHLAA therefore had a PTAL uplift of . Other sites that have not assumes these would 1 applied to intensify previously been identified in the not come forward. development potential during SHLAA the SHLAA timeline of Phase 3 and beyond. It should be noted that no Maximum development scenario sites could come forward without further discussions with LPAs and the Greater London Authority.

2.7.2.4 Under the WLO-dependent scenario, the study identified an additional 8,800 residential units unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area. The stations with the most WLO-dependent potential identified are Cricklewood, Neasden, and South Acton. Together, these stations could bring forward over 6,000 units within a 1km catchment.

36 LB Brent, LB Ealing and OPDC are in the ‘Provide Capacity’ category for industrial floorspace in the draft new London Plan. This means they are among the boroughs where strategic demand for industrial, logistical and related uses is anticipated to be the strongest. They should seek to deliver intensified floorspace capacity in either existing and/or new locations accessible to the strategic road network and in locations with potential for transport by rail and/or water. This study assumes that this can take place away from the WLO. All other boroughs affected by the WLO are in the ‘Retain Capacity’ category. 37 Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide where applicable 59

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.2.5 In the Maximum development scenario, up to an additional 29,000 units could be unlocked. This could be as a result of LPAs and the Mayor agreeing to intensify Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the redevelopment of social housing38.

2.7.2.6 The West London Alliance has previously undertaken a development capacity study in 2014. This work estimated that the WLO could unlock up to 20,000 homes. The 2014 study approach was based on assumptions broadly in line with those for the WLO-dependent scenario plus a number of SIL sites considered ‘highly likely’ to come forward for mixed use development, including residential.

2.7.2.7 The findings of these studies do not dictate what will happen on the ground. The studies are intended to be used as a basis to inform further planning across each Local Authority. Consultation with all stakeholders, including local communities, public sector land owners and the Mayor, would be required to further refine the development potential on a site- specific basis.

2.7.2.8 In addition to homes directly supported, the scheme could also improve connectivity to other growth areas further away from the route, such as Harrow, Southall and Wembley via interchange at Harlesden, Neasden and Old Oak respectively.

38 Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide where applicable 60

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 21: Summary of housing potential by location (SHLAA phase 3 onwards) Station Scenarios Baseline WLO dependent Maximum development Total Total Additional units to Total Additional units to units units baseline units baseline Acton Central 1,434 1,910 476 4,585 3,151 Brent Cross 7,798 7,798 0 10,746 2,948 West Brentford 1,961 2,290 329 3,207 1,246 Cricklewood 1,518 3,109 1,591 3,474 1,956 Harlesden 1,905 2,020 115 2,020 115 Hendon 1,622 2,154 532 3,131 1,509 Hounslow 3,394 3,739 345 3,739 345 Isleworth 1,322 1,553 231 2,678 1,356 Kew Bridge 1,132 1,132 0 2,791 1,659 Lionel Road 619 619 0 1,310 691 Neasden 2,126 4,253 2,127 8,014 5,888 OOC Victoria 18,244 18,244 0 18,244 0 Road 39 South Acton 2,533 4,917 2,384 6,490 3,957 Syon Lane 616 708 92 3,173 2,557 West Hampstead 1,792 2,374 582 3,667 1,875 Total 48,016 56,819 8,803 77,269 29,253 Source: SNC Lavalin Table 22: Summary of housing potential by Planning Authority (SHLAA phase 3 onwards) Local Authority Scenarios Baseline WLO dependent Maximum development Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711 Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22 Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609 Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672 Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240 Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489 OPDC40 19,383 19,383 19,383 Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143 Total 48,016 56,819 77,269 Source: SNC Lavalin

39 Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport schemes 40 Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport schemes 61

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.3 The WLO scheme could support employment growth . The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office and 6,000 industrial jobs.

. The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to access growing employment hubs such as Old Oak/Park Royal and Great West Corridor

2.7.3.1 The development capacity study also considered a high level desktop assessment of employment workspace potential as a result of the WLO. The WLO-dependent scenario considers the employment capacity of allocated, approved and potential development sites. Securing of these sites’ development for mixed use provides employment capacity of 5,000 retail, nearly 12,000 office and 6,000 industrial jobs.

2.7.2.9 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)41 (Table 23). Table 23: Economically active population able to access each station within 50 minutes (‘000s) Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change Acton Central 1,121 1,338 19.3% Brent Cross West 718 790 10.1% Brentford 918 1,167 27.2% Cricklewood 1,038 1,046 0.8% Harlesden 1,168 1,176 0.7% Hendon 922 980 6.2% Hounslow 505 525 4.0% Isleworth 546 575 5.2% Kew Bridge 1,034 1,162 12.4% Lionel Road 838 1,010 20.4% Neasden 796 801 0.7% OOC Victoria Road 1,147 1,294 12.9% South Acton 1,175 1,246 6.0% Syon Lane 715 986 37.9% West Hampstead 2,275 2,283 0.3% Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 population

2.7.2.10 Furthermore, the WLO would link a number of town centres across West London, several of which are identified in the draft new London Plan as strategic regeneration priorities. Improved public transport connections can

41 Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be served by Brentford and Syon Lane 62

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

play an important role in maintaining town centre viability. Previous analysis by GLA Economics has demonstrated evidence of a strong relationship between employment and population density in areas of low public transport accessibility, concluding that “there is reasonable evidence to suggest that land turned over for housing in areas of low transport accessibility could be associated with employment growth in the local economy”42. The results of the study suggest that increasing the resident population of an area by 1,000 could potentially, on average, lead to 171 additional jobs in the local area.

2.7.4 The WLO scheme would address orbital connectivity barriers and improve journey times across west and north west London . The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas

. The WLO would provide a new direct link between residential areas, town centres and employment clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area, significantly increasing the number of jobs within a reasonable public transport travel time from stations along the Hounslow Loop line

. The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public transport journeys across west and north west London and beyond by linking eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic interchange

2.7.4.1 The WLO scheme would bridge the public transport connectivity gap between north and west London. The route would provide a direct link between Old Oak/Park Royal and the Brent Cross/Cricklewood area, with journey times of 12-15 minutes, compared to journey times of at least 23 - 35 minutes at present43. The service would provide a reliable alternative to travelling by car on the congested road network in the area.

2.7.4.2 The WLO scheme would provide a direct service for customers wishing to travel between stations served by the Hounslow Loop line and those served by the North London line, allowing customers originating in Hounslow and Brentford to access Acton and Old Oak without needing to back-track or use parallel bus routes to complete their journeys.

42 More residents, more jobs? 2015 update: The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London, GLA Economics, 2015 43 WLO operating times between Old Oak Victoria Road and Cricklewood are estimated to be 12.5 minutes (Source: TfL/WSP). Current journey times are approximately 23 – 35 minutes in the inter peak (Source: TfL Journey Planner. The lower end of the range relates to journeys from Willesden Junction to Cricklewood via London Overground and Thameslink. The upper end of the range relates to journeys from Victoria Road to Cricklewood via bus route 266). 63

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Interchange at Kew Bridge would enable easier journeys from Old Oak and areas to the north to Chiswick and Barnes.

2.7.4.3 The effect of this would be an increase in the number of jobs accessible within 50 minutes of stations south/south west of Old Oak in particular, with some seeing an increase of up to 76 per cent (Table 24)

Table 24: Jobs accessible from each station within 50 minutes (‘000s) Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change Acton Central 2,260 3,213 42.2% Brent Cross West 1,694 1,796 6.0% Brentford 1,271 1,985 56.2% Cricklewood 2,841 2,850 0.3% Harlesden 2,638 2,660 0.8% Hendon 2,153 2,251 4.6% Hounslow 537 592 10.3% Isleworth 588 654 11.2% Kew Bridge 1,941 2,188 12.7% Lionel Road 1,406 1,907 35.7% Neasden 2,198 2,199 0.0% OOC Victoria Road 2,854 3,147 10.3% South Acton 2,585 2,923 13.1% Syon Lane 1,041 1,835 76.2% West Hampstead 4,012 4,030 0.5% Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 employment

2.7.4.4 The WLO scheme also supports the development of Old Oak as a strategic interchange for west and north west London. The MTS identifies strategic interchanges as having the potential to provide multiple high- frequency radial services to central London, high quality orbital services that connect to other parts of London and high frequency local bus services. A mature strategic interchange at Old Oak would make public transport a competitive alternative to the car for journeys across the sub- region, and between the sub-region and neighbouring sub-regions, without the need to travel via central London.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 33: Strategic interchanges

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)

2.7.4.5 By addressing orbital connectivity barriers, and supporting the development of a strategic interchange, the WLO could deliver journey time benefits for both orbital and radial trips.

2.7.4.6 The WLO scheme would link a corridor stretching from Hounslow to Hendon to the new Elizabeth Line station at Old Oak Common, enabling more direct one-stop connections to Heathrow, the West End, the City and Canary Wharf. This could yield journey time benefits for trips from parts of LB Hounslow to destinations in the West End, and from LB Brent towards Heathrow (via the Elizabeth line).

Table 25: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to West End using Elizabeth line interchange) OD Pair Route Journey Number Route with Journey Number Journey without time of WLO time with of time WLO without changes WLO changes saving WLO Hounslow to Hounslow – 62 mins 1 Hounslow – 50 mins 1 12 mins Tottenham Waterloo – Old Oak – Court Road Tottenham Tottenham Court Road Court Road Neasden to Neasden – 70 mins 1 Neasden – 45 mins 1 25 mins Heathrow Bond Street – Old Oak – (via Elizabeth Heathrow Heathrow line)44

44 Assumes customer uses Elizabeth line rather than premium Heathrow Express service 65

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.4.7 By providing a direct link from LB Hounslow into this strategic interchange, the WLO scheme would enable north-south trips to be made within the sub-region with one interchange, avoiding the need to travel via central London. At present, to travel from Hounslow, Isleworth or Brentford to Wembley or Harrow would require multiple changes, including at least one additional bus stage in many cases. This makes the public transport option unappealing, meaning the trip would either be made by car or not at all. By feeding the strategic interchange at Old Oak, the WLO would enable multiple new one-stop origin-destination pairs by public transport within the sub-region, with competitive journey times.

Table 26: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to Wembley with fewer interchanges)

OD Pair Route without Journey Number Route Journey Number Journey WLO time of with WLO time with of time without changes WLO changes saving WLO Hounslow Hounslow – 64 mins 2 Hounslow – 47 mins 1 17 mins to Gunnersbury Harlesden – Wembley (bus) – Willesden Wembley Central Junction – Central Wembley Central Hounslow – 67 mins 2 Hounslow – 47 mins 1 20 mins Richmond – Harlesden – Willesden Wembley Junction – Central Wembley Central

2.7.4.8 The Dudding Hill line links LB Barnet and the Thameslink corridor to this part of west London. A new passenger service would enable trips from the north sub-region to town centres in west London, such as Wembley, Ealing, Acton, Brentford and Hounslow, to be made by public transport via Old Oak, without the need to back-track or travel via central London. This would also provide additional connectivity from outer north London and towns on the edge of London such as Borehamwood and St. Albans to HS2 and Heathrow airport (via the Elizabeth line).

Table 27: Journey time comparison (Thameslink corridor to west London, avoiding Zone 1) OD Pair Route Journey Number Route with Journey Number Journey without WLO time of WLO time with of time without changes WLO changes saving WLO Brent Cross Brent Cross 55 mins 2 Brent Cross 31 mins 1 24 mins West to West – West West – Old Ealing Hampstead- Oak – Ealing Broadway Bond Street – Broadway Ealing Broadway St. Albans St. Albans – 86 mins 1 St. Albans – 77 mins 2 9 mins to Heathrow Farringdon – Brent Cross (via Heathrow West – Old Elizabeth Oak – Heathrow line)

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 34: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)

to Watford, Stanmore and Luton to Watford, Stanmore and Luton Key

West London Orbital Hendon London Underground Hendon New interchanges Bakerloo Central District enabling journeys Jubilee Brent Cross Metropolitan West Brent Cross Piccadilly between Thameslink, West Other Rail London Overground Jubilee and Bakerloo/ Elizabeth line Thameslink Great Western Railway Watford DC corridors South Western Railway London Northwestern Railway High Speed 2 Neasden and destinations to the Neasden south, without needing to travel via central London Harlesden Harlesden Cricklewood Cricklewood

to the West Midlands and beyond West to the West Hampstead Midlands and beyond West to Stratford Hampstead to Stratford

Willesden Junction Willesden Junction

to the West End, City and Canary to the West End, Greenford Wharf City and Canary Greenford Wharf

Old Oak to the West End, Old Oak to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary New direct link to the West End, and Reading Wharf to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary between and Reading Wharf Hounslow Loop Ealing Broadway and Old Oak, Ealing Broadway enabling journeys between Surrey

Hounslow Kew and Old Oak/Park Bridge Hounslow Kew to Feltham Bridge and Staines to Clapham Royal. to Feltham Junction and and Staines to Clapham Waterloo Junction and Richmond Waterloo Richmond

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.5 The WLO scheme could help address congestion and capacity challenges in west and north west London . The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing congestion along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west London

. The WLO could alleviate crowding on the busy rail and Tube lines

2.7.5.1 The journey time savings outlined above would make public transport more competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west London. Alongside a wide array of ongoing measures (including active travel schemes and continued development of the bus network), this would support mode shift from the car to active, efficient and sustainable modes, which would help to reduce congestion and related disbenefits (e.g. poor air quality.

2.7.5.2 By providing competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO could also help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections of the transport network, including the Piccadilly line.

2.7.6 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with London and local policy 2.7.6.1 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with both London wide policy (as outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, draft new London Plan and other Mayoral documents), and local policy (as outlined in local plans, OAPFs and sub-regional visions).

Table 28: Policy alignment of WLO scheme

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives National Sets out aims of delivering a sufficient supply The WLO scheme delivers a Planning Policy of homes, building a strong, competitive new sustainable transport Framework economy, ensuring the vitality of town option. The new capacity and (February 2019) centres, promoting healthy and safe connectivity this brings would communities, promoting sustainable support the delivery of new transport, supporting high quality homes, a strong competitive communications, making effective use of economy and successful town land, achieving well-designed places, centres. protecting Green Belt land, meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change, conserving and enhancing the natural environment, conserving and enhancing the historic environment, and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives Connecting Sets out vision for: The WLO scheme expands people: A . A more reliable railway the passenger rail network in strategic vision . An expanded network west London and delivers for rail (2017) . A better deal for passengers improved connectivity for . A modern workforce passengers. . A productive and innovative sector Mayor’s Proposal 88: The Mayor, through TfL, the The WLO scheme is a Transport West London Alliance boroughs and Network proposal in its own right in the Strategy (2018) Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new MTS (Proposal 88). London Overground ‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood The WLO scheme improves and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent public transport connectivity in Cross west London, enabling more Policy 1: The Mayor, through TfL and the trips to be made by active, boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will efficient and sustainable reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in modes. favour of active, efficient and sustainable modes of travel, with the central aim for 80 The WLO scheme supports per cent of all trips in London to be made on the emerging strategic foot, by cycle or using public transport by interchange at Old Oak, 2041. providing orbital interchange Proposal 67: The Mayor, through TfL, will with radial services to central work to encourage the development and London, orbital services to integration of inner and outer London rail other parts and high- services and multi-modal interchange hubs to frequency local bus services. create ‘mini-radial’ public transport links to town centres and to provide improved ‘orbital’ The WLO scheme could public transport connectivity. unlock 8,800 new homes Policy 21: The Mayor through TfL and the along its route in line with boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will Good Growth. ensure that new homes and jobs in London are delivered in line with the transport principles of Good Growth for current and future Londoners by using transport to: a) Create high density, mixed-use place, and b) Unlock growth potential in underdeveloped parts of the city

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives Draft new Policy GG2: To create high-density, mixed- The WLO scheme is London Plan use places that make the best use of land, highlighted in the Key (2017) those involved in planning and development Diagram specifying the Plan’s must: At Examination spatial vision for London.

in Public Stage A. Prioritise the development of Opportunity Areas, brownfield land, surplus public sector The WLO scheme provides a land, sites which are well-connected by direct link between existing or planned Tube and rail stations, Opportunity Areas in Old sites within and on the edge of town centres, and small sites. Oak/Park Royal, Brent Cross B. Proactively explore the potential to intensify and the Great West Corridor the use of land, including public land, to and links each of these to the support additional homes and workspaces, promoting higher density development, wider public transport particularly on sites that are well-connected by network. public transport, walking and cycling, applying a design–led approach. The WLO scheme could C. Understand what is valued about existing places and use this as a catalyst for growth unlock 8,800 new homes and place-making, strengthening London’s along its route in line with distinct and varied character. Good Growth. D. Protect London’s open spaces, including the

Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, designated nature conservation sites and local spaces, and promote the creation of new green infrastructure and urban greening. E. Plan for good local walking, cycling and public transport connections to support a strategic target of 80 per cent of all journeys using sustainable travel, enabling car-free lifestyles that allow an efficient use of land, as well as using new and enhanced public transport links to unlock growth. F. Maximise opportunities to use infrastructure assets for more than one purpose, to make the best use of land and support efficient maintenance.

Policy GG4: To create a housing market that works better for all Londoners, those involved in planning and development must:

A. Ensure that more homes are delivered. B. Support the delivery of the strategic target of 50 per cent of all new homes being genuinely affordable. C. Create mixed and inclusive communities, with good quality homes that meet high standards of design and provide for identified needs, including for specialist housing. D. Identify and allocate a range of site, including small sites, to deliver housing locally, supporting skilled preceision-manufacturing that can increase the rate of building, and planning for all necessary supporting infrastructure from the outset. E. Establish ambitious and achievable build-out rates at the planning stage, incentivising build- out milestones to helo ensure that homes are built quickly and to reduce the likelihood of permissions being sought to sell land on at a higher value. 70

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives Draft new Policy GG5: To conserve and enhance The WLO could support local London Plan London’s global economic competitiveness economies by connecting (2017) and ensure that economic success is shared town centres and Opportunity amongst all Londoners, those involved in At Examination Areas across the sub-region. planning and development must: in Public Stage (continued) A. Promote the strength and potential of the The WLO provides wider city region. connectivity to Strategic B. Seek to ensure that London’s economy Industrial Locations, diversifies and that the benefits of economic success are shared more equitably across supporting intensification at London. these well-used and valuable C. Plan for sufficient employment and industrial sites. space in the right locations to support economic development and regeneration. D. Ensure that sufficient high-quality and affordable housing, as well as physical and social infrastructure is provided to support London’s growth. E. Ensure that London continues to provide leadership in innovation, research, policy and ideas, supporting its role as an international incubator and centre for learning. F. Promote and support London’s rich heritage and cultural assets, and its role as a 24-hour city. G. Maximise London’s existing and future public transport, walking and cycling network, as well as its network of town centres, to support agglomeration and economic activity.

London Policy 3.2: Investment to support the delivery The WLO scheme could Housing of homes and enabling infrastructure should unlock 8,800 new homes Strategy (2018) be increased and better-targeted to unlock along its route in line with development. Good Growth. London Proposal 4.2.2c: The Mayor will work with While the Dudding Hill line is Environment government and other partners to seek currently diesel-only, there is Strategy (2018) reductions in emissions from rail transport a medium-term aspiration to and at stations. electrify this line.

Improved public transport connectivity would promote mode shift in west and north west London, bringing air quality benefits. Mayor’s Commits the Mayor to working with the OPDC The WLO delivers enhanced Culture to create a new cultural quarter around the connectivity at Old Oak. Strategy (2018) planned Old Oak Common station. Identifies the link between transport investment and supporting London’s creative economy. Mayor’s Identifies the action to use new transport The WLO scheme could Economic schemes to unlock homes and jobs across unlock 8,800 new homes Development London, with developments planned around along its route in line with Strategy for walking and cycling for local trips and public Good Growth and could also London (2017) transport use for longer journeys support new jobs. 71

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives Mayor’s Health Highlights the link between the Healthy The WLO scheme aligns with Inequalities Streets Approach to transport planning, the Healthy Streets Approach Strategy (2018) including enhancements to the public by providing enhanced public transport network, and health outcomes. transport connectivity. Old Oak & Park Principle T1: Proposals should: The WLO scheme provides a Royal OAPF a. Deliver a state of the art rail station at Old new London Overground (2015) 45 Oak Common, providing interchange between station at Old Oak Common HS2, Crossrail 1 and the Great Western Main Victoria Road and enhances Line; the overall connectivity of the b. Provide new London Overground station(s) area. and supporting infrastructure; c. Provide substantial capacity improvements to existing London Underground and Overground stations, particularly Willesden Junction and North Acton, and potentially stations in the wider area; d. Ensure that the impact on existing rail infrastructure is minimised during construction; and e. Seek to embed existing and future technology to inform station design to maximise integration with the wider area. OPDC Local Policy P7: Proposals should plan positively to These policies would support Plan (2018)46 deliver the place vision by contributing and / the delivery of the WLO With Planning or delivering where appropriate and relevant scheme Inspectorate as follows:

m) Safeguarding land for the delivery of the West London Orbital Line station and services within Acton Wells

Policy P7C2: Proposals should plan positively to deliver the cluster vision by contributing and / or delivering where appropriate and relevant as follows:

d) Supporting the delivery of Old Oak Common Lane London Overground Station to enhance public transport access and as an integral part of the built environment by providing: ground floor entrances onto the station squares; 24 hour ungated walking and cycling east west access routes; and step- free access.

45 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/oapf_for_web.pdf 46 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/kd1_opdc_local_plan_and_appendix2018.pdf 72

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives WLA West The West London Vision for Growth is to be a The WLO scheme supports London’s thriving and prosperous part of a premier economic growth and town Vision for world city, with highly profitable businesses centres by improving Growth 47 investing in West London, successful connectivity through west residents and resilient communities. London. The Vision outlines six key objectives: •To achieve a step change in partnership with The WLO scheme could business and industry to facilitate sustainable unlock 8,800 new homes, economic growth supporting the objective of •To increase small business start-up and delivering 74,000 homes survival rates through business support hubs, across the wider region. higher exports and focused collaboration with higher education institutions •To remove the skills gap and support low- paid residents in work to enable them to achieve pay levels that can sustain and improve their living arrangements •To radically improve success rates for employment programmes for residents with all young people in education, employment or training •To deliver at least 74,000 homes as part of a housing programme that meets the needs of our residents and supports growth •To create and maintain thriving town centres which are hubs for work and living West London Sets out West London-specific challenges: The WLO scheme directly Sub-Regional . Enhance east-west capacity and manage addresses north-south public Transport congestion transport connectivity and Plan48 . Improve north-south public transport improves access to, from and connectivity within Opportunity Areas at . Improve access to, from and within key Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old locations Oak/Park Royal and the Great . Improve land-based air quality West Corridor. . Enhance the efficiency of freight movement The scheme would complement schemes aimed at enhancing east-west capacity, managing congestion and improving air quality, and would be designed in a way that ensure rail freight can be moved efficiently.

47 http://app.thco.co.uk/wla/wlanew.nsf/pages/WLA-307 48 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-sub-regional-transport-plans-2016.pdf 73

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports Document these objectives LB Barnet Core Policy CS2 identifies Brent Cross- The WLO scheme serves Strategy49 Cricklewood as a major focus for the creation regeneration areas around of new jobs and homes (5,510 new homes by Brent Cross, Cricklewood and 2026) Hendon. Policy CS9 identifies the delivery of high quality transport systems in regeneration areas as a priority LB Brent Core Policy CP 14 states that the council will The WLO scheme provides a Strategy50 promote improvements to orbital public northeast-southwest orbital To be transport routes which link the strategic link across the borough, superseded by centres in North West London and the Growth linking to the Old Oak Park Draft Local Areas. Royal OA in the south. Plan (below)

LB Brent Draft Policy BT1 (sustainable travel choice) of the The WLO would enhance Local Plan51 draft new local plan52 notes that if the WLO is delivery of substantial new Post- not taken forward, orbital travel will continue housing and employment consultation to be dependent on the car and bus network, Growth Areas identified at stage that these options are less reliable due to Staples Corner and Neasden road congestion, and that this would have and improve local connectivity detrimental economic and social impacts. The and opportunities for walking latest consultation stage for this document and cycling in the areas closed in January 2019. concerned.

LB Ealing Core Policy 4.4: Promote North-South Links The WLO scheme enhances Strategy53 (a) To seek improvements to the North services along the North London Line / London Overground stations London Line corridor. and services in the borough. LB Hounslow Policy EC1 seeks to promote the The WLO scheme provides a Core Strategy54 development of the proposed rail connection Hounslow-Old Oak link. from Hounslow station to Willesden Junction via Old Oak Common, with services calling at Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford. Great West Outlines the need for sustainable transport The WLO scheme provides a Corridor Local options need to be improved throughout the Hounslow-Old Oak link and Plan Review55 area to provide attractive alternatives to the could include a station at private car and reduce car dependency, Lionel Road. including Lionel Road station on a Hounslow- Old Oak link

49 https://www.barnet.gov.uk/dam/jcr:48a8da3d-2998-4c19-b33f-3bd690637878/Local%20Plan%20- %20Core%20Strategy%20DPD%20(September%202012).pdf 50 https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf 51 https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411928/brent-preferred-options-local-plan-nov-2018.pdf 52 https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411861/draft-local-plan-transport.pdf 53 https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3559/adopted_development_strategy_3_april_2012.p df 54 https://hounslow.box.com/shared/static/i1jpu00afbftgbd1fdubkl6z0ivgdugo.pdf 74

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.7 Technical Assessment

2.7.7.1 A high level technical assessment of work previously completed by the WLA has been conducted on issues such as engineering complexity, constructability and identification of key dependencies and risks. Some key considerations of this high level assessment for key elements of the WLO scheme are presented in Table 29. This does not constitute a full feasibility assessment for each infrastructure work identified and although no ‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, confirmation of technical feasibility would only be provided on the completion of a full GRIP 2 assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.

Table 29: High level technical assessment key considerations

New stations at Neasden . Assumed to be based on ‘standard’ London Overground and Harlesden station construction. London Overground Station Design Idiom to be used . Initial identification of required facilities undertaken . Pedestrian modelling needed to determine correct capacity provision . Detailed land assessment required both for construction and final state Brent Cross West Station . Assumed that the scheme would integrate with the new station. The design of the new station would need to ensure there is provision for WLO to be provided at a later date Acton Wells Junction . Bridge works associated with four tracking identified as particularly challenging within the geographical context . Access for construction works highlighted as problematic, both in terms of obtaining railway possession access and non-rail land availability for works site Re-signalling of Dudding . A number of different signalling control boundaries exist in the Hill Line area which would make finding the right signalling solution and control arrangements more challenging to get route approval Kew Bridge or Lionel Road . Existing track alignment at this location would make providing turnback a compliant turnback facility challenging. This would be further complicated by platform provision if part of a new Lionel Road station Level crossing works . Potential interface with Network Rail National Level Crossing Programme . Requirement to use existing Network Rail risk assessment procedure to assess need to close level crossing Electrification/Traction . Confirmation of status of any electrification requirement for power Kew – Acton and Dudding Hill Line sections required. . Traction power modelling required to be undertaken for electrified sections of the route to determine any additional supply required to accommodate new service

55 https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20167/local_plan/1104/great_west_corridor_local_plan_review/1

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.7.7.2 A high level review of existing cost estimate work has also been undertaken. The outputs of this work have informed the Economic Case and Financial Case.

2.7.8 Operational Assessment 2.7.8.1 A high level operational assessment has been undertaken56. This assumes current timetable planning rules continue to apply, London Overground services as per May 2018 timetable change and freight services as per May 2018 WTT, and an 8tph WLO service pattern. This does not constitute a full timetable study which would need to be conducted to determine full operational feasibility of the proposed WLO service.

2.7.8.2 The reversing siding/bay platforms proposed at Hounslow, Kew Bridge, West Hampstead and Hendon should be able to accommodate a maximum of 6 trains per hour. Therefore the proposed train reversing facility at terminus stations would be sufficient to meet the operational requirements of 4tph turnaround operations at each terminus.

2.7.8.3 The route between South Acton and Acton Wells Junction would need to be shared by London Overground North London Line services, freight trains and the proposed WLO service. Based on the planning rules it would provide a maximum capacity of 15tph, which is more than the total number of passenger train paths required, and would give 2-3 paths that could be allocated to freight services. This route section would be able to meet current freight demand, but there would be limited spare capacity to cope with future freight demand growth.

2.7.8.4 The proposed modified track layout at Acton Wells Junction, which segregates freight and passenger movements, would help reduce timetabling conflicts. However, the modified junction would be much bigger than the existing junction and it would be more likely that trains would need to clear the whole junction crossing, increasing the time required for this in the Timetable Planning rules. This would need to be assessed again once a signalling scheme for the new junction is developed.

2.7.8.5 Due to the more fluid nature of freight operations and the timetable structure for existing passenger services, a full timetable study should be conducted to determine full operational feasibility of the proposed WLO service57. This would need to cover the full proposed route following

56 This assessment focuses on areas where London Overground currently runs (the central core of the WLO alignment between South Acton and Old Oak). 57 A 2017 Network Rail timetable study concluded that a 4tph peak service between Hounslow and Old Oak was possible, but would carry some performance risk 76

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

agreement of infrastructure and operational assumptions with Network Rail as part of a full GRIP 2 assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.

2.8 Constraints and Dependencies 2.8.1 Overview 2.8.1.1 The scheme would be developed in collaboration with Network Rail, the owner and provider of Britain’s National Rail infrastructure. As the entire proposed WLO route is on Network Rail infrastructure, all technical and operational approvals for the scheme would be through them. This section considers key operational and planning constraints and dependencies as identified by Network Rail based on the initial work to date, as well as other policy constraints flowing from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, London Plan, LPA local plans and other policies/strategies.

2.8.2 Stations and capacity 2.8.2.1 Network Rail has expressed concern over the ability of stations between Hounslow and Kew Bridge to accommodate increased passenger services. In the next stage business case development, capacity at existing stations would be tested to determine if capacity interventions are required to accommodate additional users driven by the new WLO service. Any new stations proposed on the line of route would be designed to accommodate expected future demand of the WLO service.

2.8.2.2 At Old Oak Common, it is recognised that assumptions would need to be made as to whether passengers would be interchanging to other services (e.g. GWR to Reading) or travelling to Old Oak itself. Previous modelling has suggested that the scheme would cause significant changes to demand at Old Oak Common station (representing an approximate additional 10 per cent demand for the HS2/GWML station) that may drive additional scope.

2.8.2.3 The impact on Elizabeth Line train loading also requires consideration.

2.8.3 Construction 2.8.3.1 There are likely to be considerable disruptive works for construction, partly due to crossing busy junctions such as Acton Wells. Construction on HS2 and the GWML may happen at the same time, requiring careful planning and integration between a number of major rail works.

2.8.4 Service trade-offs 2.8.4.1 The frequency of service on the Hounslow to Kew Bridge route would limit the potential for more services to London Waterloo that could be available. These services could be more valuable. We would continue to work with 77

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Network Rail Long Term Planning in the next stage of business case development to understand the scheme in the context of wider long-term aspirations.

2.8.5 Rail freight 2.8.5.1 The WLO scheme would need to be developed in a way that aligns with the MTS, ensuring that the shared network is planned to make the best use of rail capacity for both passenger and freight services.

2.8.5.2 Future growth in rail freight is expected. Network Rail estimates a 50 per cent increase in demand over the next 25 years. The potential for a W10 diversionary route (from Southampton to the West Midlands) via Kew would impact on paths between Kew and Acton Canal Wharf. The WLO scheme would need to be aligned to the key recommendations of the Network Rail Freight Network Study58 and full consultation with freight operators would be required through the formal Network Change process.

2.8.5.3 The Dudding Hill line and North London line are both important routes for rail freight in London. The different acceleration and speeds of passenger and freight trains would impact on the available capacity for both services on shared parts of the network.

2.8.6 Rail emissions 2.8.6.1 The Dudding Hill line is not currently electrified. The MTS states that by 2050 all trains should be hauled by zero emission motive-power within London. In the short-term, electrification of the route would be capital- intensive with limited benefits given the volume of trains expected to use the route. The core scheme considered in this Business Case assumes the use of diesel trains. As such, the appraisal of the environmental impacts of the scheme can therefore be considered to be pessimistic in the core scheme (see Section 3).

2.8.6.2 London Overground would have no diesel fleet by the start of the WLO service with the remaining diesel fleet on the Gospel Oak to Barking (GOB) route being phased out in 2019 and replaced with a fully electric fleet. TfL would also no longer have access to facilities for diesel trains within Willesden Train Maintenance Depot (TMD) as these are being replaced for the new electric fleet on the GOB line and therefore new maintenance and stabling facilities for diesel trains would be required by the project.

58 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Freight-Network-Study-April-2017.pdf 78

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2.8.6.3 Potential mitigation could include developing options for the provision of battery-powered trains for this section of route. This technology is already in use on some railways in Japan, and trials are planned on the Austrian rail network in 2019. A number of approvals would be required to be granted by the infrastructure owner Network Rail to allow for battery- powered train technology to be used on the proposed WLO route.

2.8.6.4 In the longer-term full electrification could be pursued. Future iterations of this Business Case should seek to utilise the already identified strategy for electrification of rail freight and previous early feasibility work that Network Rail has carried out on this route.

2.8.7 Planning policy 2.8.7.1 The scale of housing, employment and other development benefits that could be attributed to the WLO scheme is dependent on the evolution of planning policy. A masterplan-led approach to enable intensification and co-location of housing and employment could enable significantly higher housing volumes to be delivered while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan, particularly at stations along the northern end of the route.

2.8.7.2 All the local planning authorities along the proposed route have been engaged in preparation of this document and have contributed to the development capacity study that has informed it. They are also ensuring that the WLO is supported in their local plans.

2.8.8 Old Oak Common stations 2.8.8.1 The continued development of Old Oak as a strategic interchange is key to realising many of the connectivity benefits of the WLO scheme. It is therefore important that the Old Oak Common stations scheme continues to progress, particularly the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station and that it is developed in a way that supports the delivery of the WLO.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

3 Economic Case

3.1 Description 3.1.1.1 The role of the Economic Case is to determine whether the West London Orbital (WLO) scheme would be beneficial to the UK economy relative to its costs. Measures used to express the economic case for each assessed option include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).

3.2 Option selection 3.2.1.1 Two service patterns for the preferred heavy rail option are considered within this economic case:

. 8tph core option; 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon . 4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon

3.2.1.2 All options assume that the route is not fully electrified and the assessment therefore assumes operation is by diesel trains. Costs and benefits have been modelled assuming operation by 4-car class 172 rolling stock, and assume operation commences in 2026.

3.2.1.3 In addition to the two service patterns variants above, two alternative land use scenarios have been modelled, using the outputs of the Development Capacity Study outlined in Section 2.7.2. These are:

. A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 8,800 homes) . A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 29,300 homes)

3.2.1.4 Whilst these do not represent different options, they help to build understanding of the potential outcomes and benefits of the scheme through multiple modelled scenarios.

3.2.1.5 The remainder of this section considers the costs, revenue and benefits associated with these options and scenarios, using additional sensitivity tests where relevant to highlight the impact associated with different uncertainties and modelling methodologies.

3.2.1.6 A key analytical challenge and uncertainty is the extent to which the development scenarios represent new homes that are induced investment (i.e. fully dependent on WLO). This should be investigated further at the next stage of business case development. For the purpose of this analysis,

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

the scenarios assume fixed land-use i.e. the additional development is included both with and without WLO.

3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues 3.3.1 Capital Costs 3.3.1.1 Table 29 summarises the capital costs are included in the economic appraisal and are taken from the study undertaken in October 2017 by WSP for the West London Alliance59. Costs for Lionel Road station were estimated based on WSP work conducted separately for LB Hounslow60.

Table 30: Breakdown of Capital Costs, £m (assumed 2017 prices) Cost item Cost West Hampstead 2 new platforms 1 Cricklewood 2 new platforms 5.5 Hendon 2 new platforms 1 Brent Cross West station works 5 Neasden new station 6 Harlesden new station 6 OO Victoria road new platforms 6 Re-signalling of Dudding Hill line and Acton - 8 Kew Quadrupling of Acton Wells Junction area 45 Bollo Lane level crossing placement 30 Acton level crossing 5 Kew Bridge or Lionel Road turnback 4 Old Kew Junction doubling 4.6 Old Kew Junction flyover 8.5 Hounslow bay platform 5.4 Depot facilities 5 Lionel Road new station* 6 Sub-total 152 Risk and Contingency (@ 80% of above total) 121 Total 273 *cost not supplied within WSP report.

3.3.1.2 This cost is assumed to occur evenly over the 3-year period from 2023 to 2025.

3.3.1.3 The inclusion of risk and contingency at 80 per cent has been included in recognition of the early design stage of the scheme.

59 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017) 60 Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014) 81

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

3.3.1.4 No additional cost is included for renewals, but provision for infrastructure maintenance and renewals is at least part covered by the Fixed Track Access Charge (FTAC) included within operating costs.

3.3.1.5 Inclusion of optimism bias, deflation to 2010 prices, a market price adjustment, and discounting generates a total cost of £179m over 60 years in 2010 prices and values.

3.3.1.6 We have also considered a further cost sensitivity where capital costs have been further increased by £100m to account for possible additional costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope.

3.3.2 Operating Costs 3.3.2.1 Table 31 outlines operating costs for the 8tph and 4tph service pattern options.

Table 31: Breakdown of annual operating Costs, £m (2018 prices) Cost item 8tph 4tph Staff Costs 7.3 3.8 Rolling Stock Lease 7.9 4.2 Rolling Stock Maintenance 3.3 1.7 Fixed Track Access Charge (FTAC) 6.1 3.2 Variable Track Access Charge 0.3 0.3 (VTAC) Diesel fuel 1.3 0.7 Total 26.3 13.9 Source: TfL

3.3.2.2 These costs draw on the following assumptions: . A service pattern operating over an 18-hour day, with train frequency consistent on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. . Operation by 4-car diesel units (modelled as class 172s); and requirement for a fleet of 15 or 8 units (for the 8tph and 4tph options respectively) . Infrastructure charges assuming CP6 rates . No explicit inclusion of station operating costs

3.3.2.3 Review of these costs has identified the following considerations: . Passenger demand may not require the capacity of 4-car trains and opportunity to operate shorter trains (if such units were available) would reduce rolling stock least costs (indicatively by 20 per cent) . Operation of alternative rolling stock, for example converted or new battery or hybrid powered units, has the potential to also reduce rolling stock costs, albeit the market for such units is currently developing 82

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

and little certainty is currently available over the possible cost reductions . Fixed Track Access Charge is calculated based on number of train miles in accordance with industry standard practice. There is however some potential for this to reduce if, upon consultation with the ORR, it is recognised that costs are reduced following the addition of a new operator on the route . Station operating costs should be considered for four stations. Assuming an indicative annual average operating cost per station of £300k, this adds £1.2m of cost to the total above

3.3.2.4 On balance, total annual operating costs are retained at £26.3m and £13.9m respectively for the two options within the economic assessment. Whilst some opportunity for cost savings could be established this is offset by a requirement to add station operating costs.

3.3.2.5 Further to the costs above, optimism bias at 1 per cent is added within the economic appraisal.

3.3.3 Impact on Revenue 3.3.3.1 Revenue forecasts have been developed based on outputs from strategic public transport modelling undertaken using TfL’s Railplan model61.

3.3.3.2 Key to these revenue forecasts are the following elements: . Morning peak period Railplan demand forecasts for 2031, reporting passenger kms by public transport sub-mode . Fare per km (yield) assumptions . Annualisation and growth parameters

3.3.3.3 Table 32 reports the 2031 ‘steady state’ annual revenue forecast for the 8tph WLO option. Whilst WLO services themselves are forecast to generate £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after consideration

61 The following schemes have been included within the Reference Case when calculating changes in demand and revenue: 2031 bus services including Elizabeth Line related service changes; Jubilee and Northern Line upgrades; Updated District Line specification (Ealing Broadway service replaced by Piccadilly Line, 12tph Richmond service, 20tph Wimbledon service); Future updates to bus routes 440, H28 and E10 (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); Corrections to bus services in the Great West Corridor (sourced from validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); New Brent Cross West station; Station interchange adjustments at Hounslow, Syon Lane, Brentford, Kew Bridge, Osterley, Boston Manor, Northfields, South Ealing, Gunnersbury and Southall (sourced from validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); Old Oak Common Masterplan walk network updates (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); New Overground stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane 83

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground services, is a much more modest £2m.

3.3.3.4 The forecasts shown are developed from Railplan outputs, following application of an annualisation factor consistent with TfL business case guidance62. Fare yield (see Table 33) is based on values calculated directly from 2017 outturn statistics for aggregate transport usage on TfL bus, London Underground and London Overground services. It is assumed that WLO average fares per km are consistent with the existing London Overground network (with Crossrail assumed to be equivalent to London Underground).

Table 32: Annual revenue forecasts; 8tph WLO option, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices) Annual Annual passenger Annual passenger kms journeys Revenue (2017 prices) West London Orbital 88.98 11.47 15.33 London Overground -7.40 -1.20 -1.27 London Underground -32.38 -2.75 -7.34 Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34 National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59 Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21 Total 22.84 3.31 2.27 sub-total (excluding franchised 32.08 3.08 3.86 rail) Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph vs Standard Ref Case

Table 33: Yield assumptions, £ /km, 2017 prices Yield

West London Orbital 0.17 London Overground 0.17 London Underground 0.23 Crossrail 0.23 National Rail (other 0.17 services) Bus 0.18 Source: BCDM and WLO Funding Study analysis

3.3.3.5 Modelling of revenue forecasts for the 4tph sensitivity has been undertaken in a consistent manner (see Table 34).

62 As per BCDM, an annualisation factor of 1076 has been used. Analysis of using more bespoke annualisation factors has been considered within the Funding Study, but the sensitivity to alternative approaches was found to be low. 84

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 34: Annual revenue forecasts: 4tph sensitivity, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices) Annual Annual passenger Annual passenger kms journeys Revenue (2017 prices) West London Orbital 68.86 7.91 11.87 London Overground -3.37 -0.56 -0.58 London Underground -20.70 -1.77 -4.69 Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43 National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65 Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23 Total 23.84 2.16 3.15 sub-total (excluding franchised 33.44 2.41 4.80 rail) Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 4tph vs Standard Ref Case

3.3.3.6 The result from the 4tph sensitivity is that annual revenue is higher than the 8tph option. This is despite the revenue directly on WLO services being over 20 per cent lower in the 4tph option, and results from higher levels of abstraction from other modes (notably bus and London Underground) in the 8tph scenario63.The reason for this low revenue benefit compared to operating costs is due to the abstraction from higher yielding modes and reduction in journey length given that WLO allows for more direct journeys (for example avoiding higher zone 1 fares).

3.3.3.7 In addition to the revenue forecasts set out above for the standard 8tph option and 4tph sensitivity, modelling and revenue forecasts have also been produced assuming the two alternative land use scenarios (Table 35).

63 The Railplan results for the standard 4tph and 8tph options have been developed using a fixed demand matrix generated from TfL’s LTS model. This LTS model run represents the 8tph option and therefore biases the results of the 4tph option leading to lower abstraction relative to expected levels. 85

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 35: Annual revenue forecasts: Alternative land use scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices) 8tph Alternative land use 8tph Alternative land use scenario: WLO dependent scenario: Maximum Development Development Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual passenger passenger Revenue passenger passenger Revenue kms journeys (2017 kms journeys (2017 prices) prices) West London Orbital 93.79 12.15 16.16 101.88 13.33 17.56 London Overground -8.29 -1.34 -1.43 -9.12 -1.46 -1.57 London Underground -34.94 -3.14 -7.92 -40.52 -3.67 -9.18 Crossrail 5.53 -0.08 1.25 5.45 -0.20 1.23 National Rail (other services) -9.41 0.17 -1.62 -11.89 0.14 -2.05 Bus -24.53 -4.75 -4.48 -27.52 -5.62 -5.02 Total 22.14 3.00 1.97 18.28 2.53 0.97 sub-total (excluding franchised rail) 31.55 2.83 3.59 30.17 2.38 3.02 Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs Ref Case with alternative land use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per cent dependent development), the forecast revenue would be higher. 3.3.3.8 Table 36 summarises the revenue forecasts for the 8tph option, the 4tph sensitivity and the alternative land use scenarios.

Table 36: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4tph sensitivity including assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices) 8tph Sensitivity: 8tph 8tph Standard 4tph Alternative Alternative Case land use land use scenario: WLO scenario: dependent Maximum Development Development Annual passenger kms, 23 24 22 18 m Annual passenger 3 2 3 3 journeys, m Annual Revenue, £m 2.3 3.1 2.0 1.0 (2017 prices) Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis

3.3.4 Summary of Costs and Revenues 3.3.4.1 Table 37 summarises revenue and costs over the 60 years of the appraisal for the 8tph and 4tph core scenarios.

Table 37: Summary of cost and revenues, £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60 years) 8tph 4tph Revenue 66.4 92.3 Opex 585.7 309.0 Capex 178.9 178.9 Total Costs 764.5 487.8 Note demand for 4ph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as the 8tph scenario Note costs for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as interventions on both northern branches are included

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits 3.4.1 Monetised Benefits 3.4.1.1 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding changes in generalised time (comprising all journey elements i.e. walk time, service wait time, service boarding penalty, in-vehicle time, in-vehicle crowding penalty) due to the WLO were calculated and weighted by demand to represent the journey time benefits of the WLO. These include benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the Reference Case) and new public transport users (trips attracted to public transport by WLO).

3.4.1.2 The benefits cover all zones within the Railplan model (which covers all of the UK) and have been sense checked to ensure they are realistic. However, a separate set of benefits has also been produced covering only zones contained within the five London Boroughs served by the scheme, to allow for the exclusion of potentially spurious (dis)benefits between areas which in reality are unlikely to benefit from the scheme either through direct use of WLO or through crowding relief on non-WLO services.

3.4.1.3 Table 38 shows benefits for the 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity and alternative land use scenarios. Note that benefits are generated by (a) trips attracted to WLO and (b) trips using adjacent services which experience crowding relief as a result of a shift in demand to WLO e.g. London Underground Piccadilly Line services to central London. For the purposes of calculating benefits, the land-use/development impact is assumed to be the same in the Reference Case.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 38: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph, 4tph sensitivity (versus Standard Reference Case) and alternative land use scenarios (versus Reference Case with alternative land use) WLO WLO WLO 8tph + WLO WLO 8tph + 8tph 4tph dependent Dev Max Dev Whole Model Benefits Existing Users 178,106 131,450 192,049 233,996 New Users 13,745 12,165 13,956 14,292 Total 191,850 143,614 206,005 248,289 From Hounslow 38,871 35,764 39,920 49,779 To Hounslow 50,082 41,318 58,412 71,370 From Ealing 36,530 24,338 39,164 47,260 To Ealing 17,362 12,008 20,247 22,580 From Brent 37,237 23,753 42,512 49,654 To Brent 16,092 11,309 17,413 21,757 From Camden 4,974 3,100 6,000 7,052 To Camden 10,063 6,343 10,322 12,683 From Barnet 14,941 15,489 17,652 19,465 To Barnet 8,948 8,250 9,549 11,081 Screened Benefits (To/From 235,099 181,673 261,193 312,681 Hounslow/Ealing/Brent/Camden/ Barnet) Source: Railplan

3.4.1.4 The highest benefits are in the Maximum Development scenario. This represents the highest potential increase in trip-making in the WLO corridor and therefore the highest level of transport user/non-user benefits of the WLO scheme.

3.4.1.5 Externalities resulting from an increase in rail passenger km have been considered and calculated using the marginal external cost methodology in Table 39. As expected, these impacts are small compared to other benefits. As the externality benefits are a function of the change in passenger kilometres, the impacts are larger in the dependent development scenarios, which assume a significant incremental change in passenger travel.

3.4.1.6 However, since most of these trips are new trips resulting from the proposed housing developments in the corridor, the methodology used does not correctly capture the value of the benefits where dependency is assumed. We have, however, for the purpose of completeness included the externality benefits for all scenarios. However, the methodology should be revised at the next stage of the business case development, and in addition, the external costs on the existing network resulting from new trips (due to land use development) be evaluated, as recommended in WebTAG.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 39: Non-user benefits: £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60 years) 8tph 4tph Road Decongestion 67 70 Accidents 1 1 Greenhouse Emissions -2 -2 Local Air Quality 0 0 Noise 0 0

3.4.2 Non-Monetised Benefits 3.4.2.1 Broadly speaking, we anticipate the scheme would provide the following non-monetised benefits: . Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme. This would have economic benefits, in terms of generating new economic activity and increasing incomes. Economic outcomes would be further enhanced through increases in local land and property values . Social impact through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme. This would have social benefits, in terms of meeting local and London-wide housing needs. The scheme would also increase accessibility to/from wider areas of London, thus increasing job and housing opportunities. As an orbital scheme, it would enable some trips to avoid Zone 1, thus further widening the increase in accessibility provided by the scheme through lower fares . Supporting strategic transport planning and policy in accordance with the London Plan. As a public transport scheme it would provide additional capacity on the public transport network, thus relieving existing overcrowded routes (in particular radial services to/from central London) and it would serve existing and new land-uses in the WLO corridor . Environmental benefits by encouraging mode shift from highway to public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance between home and job locations

3.5 Economic Appraisal

3.5.1 Key Assumptions 3.5.1.1 Appraisal assumptions are consistent with WebTAG and TfL’s business case template.

3.5.2 Outcome of Quantified Analysis

3.5.2.1 Table 40 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the standard 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity, and the two alternative land use

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

scenarios. For the purposes of calculating benefits, the land- use/development impact is assumed to be the same in the Reference Case.

3.5.2.2 In addition to the options and sensitivities outlined above, a further two cost sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns where capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Capital costs would be considered in more detail at the next stage of business case development.

3.6 Economic Case Conclusion

3.6.1.1 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

3.6.1.2 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to identify the preferred service pattern.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 40: Appraisal results (60 years) 8tph Alternative Alternative Cost Service Cost core land use: land use: sensitivity: level sensitivity: 8tph WLO 8tph Max Dev 8tph +£100m sensitivity: 4tph +£100m dependent scenario capital cost 4tph capital cost Dev scenario Costs and Revenues Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244 Road Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 cost saving Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309 Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553 Incremental Total 66 58 28 66 92 92 Revenue Total Financial Effect -698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461 (NFE)

Benefit: Cost Ratio Present Value of 765 765 765 830 488 553 Project Cost (£m) - including OBU Net Revenue (£m, 66 58 28 66 92 92 PV) Indirect Taxation 3 2 2 3 3 3 Loss (£m, PV) Present Value of 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799 Social Benefit (£m) - PVB Present Value of 1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802 Project Benefit (£m) PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461 NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341 BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0 Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario Note costs for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as interventions on both northern branches are included

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

4 Commercial Case

4.1 Description 4.1.1.1 The role of the Commercial Case is to provide details on the commercial structure, procurement approach and accounting implications of the project. This section sets out how TfL, Network Rail and the WLA would approach procurement and commercial aspects of this project.

4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications 4.2.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have extensive experience in the procurement and construction of major infrastructure projects, with construction works having been undertaken in constrained and highly populated areas of London. Examples of such projects include the extension of the London Overground from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction and major station improvement works including those at King’s Cross St Pancras and Stratford.

Strategy and sourcing options

4.2.1.2 The project is supported by the Mayor and the West London Alliance and is being developed by TfL, in collaboration with Network Rail. If the project progresses then through close collaboration with these stakeholder groups would be ensured.

4.2.1.3 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by TfL or by Network Rail as the owner and provider of Great Britain’s National Rail infrastructure. At this time the potential location of worksites has not been determined and hence the need for Compulsory Purchase powers beyond the boundary of railway land is unknown, although any future Transport and Works Act Order process would address this issue.

4.2.1.4 Assuming that the project progresses and that further design details are determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation and management and the approach to the financing of the project. This strategy would consider potential funding sources, as established in the Financial Case, and risks associated with each of the aforementioned elements.

4.2.1.5 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground. Achieving efficiencies

4.2.1.6 Because of the extensive experience that TfL and Network Rail have in delivering extensions to the London Overground network; both 92

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

organisations would be able to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of the project. Network Rail also has the benefit of being the delivery agent of many railway infrastructure projects across the UK.

4.2.1.7 Best practice would be incorporated from TfL and Network Rail’s prior approaches to railway construction works and procurement.

External project support

4.2.1.8 It is anticipated that consultancy support would be required in the following areas, in order to support future scheme development and consents processes:

a) Legal

b) Environmental Impact Assessment

c) Engineering

d) Transport Planning

e) Planning and Socioeconomics

f) Architecture and Urban Design

g) Cost Estimating

h) Property Surveyors/ Land Referencing

Accounting implications

4.2.1.9 An assessment of the likely accounting treatment of any commercial structure under ESA95/10 would need to be undertaken to determine whether the project is likely to be treated as ‘off budget’ and therefore whether liabilities would score towards TfL borrowing.

4.3 Construction and operation 4.3.1.1 TfL would ensure that best practice is adopted in the construction and operation of the project and methods to mitigate construction impacts would be investigated.

4.3.1.2 As a public body, TfL has to meet the requirements of the Mayor of London’s Responsible Procurement Policy consisting of the following themes:

a) Environmental sustainability

b) Supplier diversity

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

c) Community benefits

d) Skills and employment

e) Fair employment

f) Ethical sourcing

4.3.1.3 In compliance with the GLA Group Responsible Procurement Policy, all potential suppliers would be required to consider these elements in their bid as part of any Invitation to Tender (ITT) for any future project support or the design and build contract. Any appointed consultant or contractor would be subject to a supplier performance plan.

4.3.1.4 It is understood that Network Rail operates similar requirements.

Supply chain utilisation

4.3.1.5 Although TfL undertakes procurement for projects implemented in the capital, the wider benefits to the UK of said projects are extensive. Services that TfL procures from outside of London for the construction of the West London Orbital would add to the pipeline of capital investment that supports jobs across the UK.

4.3.1.6 The procurement strategy for this stage of the project would be refined and improved if it is progressed further.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

5 Financial Case

5.1 Description 5.1.1.1 The role of the Financial Case is to set out the project and ongoing operating costs and financing and funding arrangement to deliver the scheme.

5.2 Financial Impact of the Project

5.2.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the very early nature of this estimate, an 80% adjustment was added to reach an estimate of £273m. These figures are based on work done by WSP for the West London Alliance in 2017 64 with the additional costs for Lionel Road station based on work done by WSP for LB Hounslow65. Construction is forecast to start early 2020s and continue until approximately 2028/29. We have also considered a sensitivity which increases costs by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Table 41 sets out the scheme costs in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost upon completion of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by WebTag guidance for the generation of the BCR) for both the core estimate and cost sensitivity.

Table 41: Capital Costs Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn66 Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values Core estimate £273m £321m £179m Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m

5.2.1.2 Significant portions of the existing line that would be used for the scheme are not electrified. The figures in the capital cost estimate do not account for the electrification of these sections. This could be needed if it were decided not to run diesel services and/or battery powered trains are not considered suitable for the line.

5.2.1.3 Operating costs of the scheme are projected to be £26m per year and revenue effect for TfL from just the WLO is forecast to be £15m. Net of revenue abstracted from other TfL services, the net revenue is estimated to be £4m67. Operations are forecasted to start in 2026 (phase 1) and 2029 (phase 2).

64 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017) 65 Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014) 66 Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1 67 Mott MacDonald Funding Study. 8tph scenario 95

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

5.2.1.4 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be balanced against revenue.

5.3 Capital Costs Funding

5.3.1.1 The following funding sources have been considered for the capital costs of this scheme68: . Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned sites

. Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new development unlocked by the scheme

. Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions etc.

5.3.1.2 Analysis of CIL and business rates funding sources for capital costs was done on the basis of 50 per cent attribution of the different funding sources to the scheme. This is consistent with the fact that other infrastructure requirements would also need to be met with the analysed funding sources. Analysis of direct development proceeds raised assumed 100 per cent allocation to the WLO scheme. Further work should consider other potential sources of funding, including planning obligations and Government programmes like the Housing Infrastructure Fund. Development gains 5.3.1.3 A number of potential development sites have been identified along the route of the scheme. Potential unlocked by the scheme would provide opportunities for development of public sector owned sites as well as for CIL receipts from other projects.

5.3.1.4 Potential CIL receipts were calculated on the basis of development unlocked by the scheme and based on CIL rates relevant to each authority (Table 42). The analysis assumes 35 per cent of residential development is exempt from CIL to account for the provision of affordable housing. Two scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario delivering 8,800 units from which CIL can be captured and a Maximum Development scenario delivering 29,300 units from which CIL can be captured. These correspond to the scenarios outlined in Section 2.7.2.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 42: CIL Revenue

Estimated CIL revenues Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value

WLO Dependent Development scenario £45.0m £79.8m £31.3m Maximum Development Scenario £128.4m £227.7m £89.3m Source: WLO Funding Study analysis

5.3.1.5 Public sector bodies could also realise gains by directly developing publicly owned sites along the WLO route (Table 43). This analysis included sites from a variety of public sector bodies. Stakeholder cooperation would be required to achieve the funding included in Table 43. Some of the sites analysed may be allocated to other projects already, and the costs and complexity of buying out leaseholds was not taken into consideration. Two scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario delivering and a Maximum Development scenario.

Table 43: Direct Development Proceeds

Estimated Direct Development Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value WLO Dependent Development scenario £29m £40m £20m Maximum Development Scenario £35m £44m £22m Source: WLO Funding Study analysis

Incremental Business Rates 5.3.1.6 The improvements in connectivity brought by the scheme would increase land values of existing properties around each station, which would lead to increased LPA business rates income. A 1km area of influence was assumed for each station along the line.

5.3.1.7 In addition to existing land value increases, new commercial development enabled by the scheme would also provide incremental LPA business rate income.

5.3.1.8 The replacement of rateable value for current sites with the one for new development causes negative business rates income during the development period of the scheme. This means that, while significant, positive business rates income is not assumed to begin until around 2040. Business rates growth proceeds are summarised in Table 44.

68 Other funding sources may be available that have not been modelled in the study e.g. workplace parking levy, incremental commercial income via over-site development. With any additional developer contribution, consideration is needed as to its marginal impact on development viability. 97

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 44: Business Rates Growth

Estimated Business Rates Growth Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value WLO Dependent Development scenario £299m £482m £109m Maximum Development Scenario £550m £965m £208m Source: WLO Funding Study analysis

Wider Contributions 5.3.1.9 Other funding sources such as TfL contributions and workplace parking levies, among others were considered for this scheme. The stressed financial position of TfL and complex implementation of some of these other alternatives means that they were considered unlikely to yield funding for the scheme at the time of analysis.

Capital costs funding conclusions 5.3.1.10 While CIL and public-sector development are within the powers of the LPAs affected by the scheme, retention of income from business rates growth by each LPA would require the 1km zones of influence around of each station to be designated as an Enterprise Zone by the UK Government for up to 25 years (or an equivalent policy instrument would need to be implemented by the UK Government).

5.3.1.11 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7 year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for the scheme are projected to begin only after 2029. This means that there would be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme.

5.3.1.12 The temporal mismatch of capital costs with available funding sources is a significant challenge that would need to be addressed for the viability of the scheme.

5.3.1.13 The challenge mentioned above is substantial. Although Figure 35 shows that selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the scheme69, further work to confirm and then secure the necessary funding is required.

69 Public-sector financing scenario assuming 3 per cent fixed interest loan 98

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Figure 35: Cash/debt balance

400,000,000

350,000,000

300,000,000

250,000,000 £ 200,000,000

150,000,000

100,000,000

50,000,000

0 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Debt balance Cash balance

Source: WLO Funding Study analysis

5.4 Operating Costs Funding

5.4.1.1 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this scheme: . Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts, including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the affordability of the operating side of the scheme

. Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the services in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable

. Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non-farebox income

Passenger Revenue 5.4.1.2 The core scenario outlined below represents an 8tph service (4tph from Kew Bridge to Hendon and 4tph from Hounslow to West Hampstead). Passenger revenue for the 8tph scenario is outlined in Table 45.

5.4.1.3 An annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset by revenue abstracted from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of £4m of net revenue.

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Table 45: Passenger Revenue (8tph scenario, 2031), £m, 2017 prices Annual Annual passenger journeys Annual passenger Revenue kms (2017 prices) West London Orbital 88.98 11.47 15.33 London Overground -7.40 -1.20 -1.27 London Underground -32.38 -2.75 -7.34 Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34 National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59 Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21 Total 22.84 3.31 2.27 Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 32.08 3.08 3.86 Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis

5.4.1.4 Alternative service patterns that could be used to manage cost would have an impact on passenger revenue. The most beneficial alternate is a 4tph service from Hounslow to Hendon. Passenger revenue for the 4tph sensitivity is outlined in Table 46.

Table 46: Passenger Revenue (4tph sensitivity, 2031), £m, 2017 prices Annual Annual Annual Revenue passenger kms passenger (2017 prices) journeys West London Orbital 68.86 7.91 11.87 London Overground -3.37 -0.56 -0.58 London Underground -20.70 -1.77 -4.69 Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43 National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65 Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23 Total 23.84 2.16 3.15 Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 33.44 2.41 4.80 Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis

Operating Costs 5.4.1.5 Alternative service patterns could be used to manage operating costs. The most beneficial alternate option is a 4tph service from Hounslow to Hendon. Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are outlined in Table 47.

Table 47: Operating Costs Core Scenario (2018/19 4tph sensitivity (2018/19 prices) prices) Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m Total £26.3m £13.8m Source: TfL

100

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

5.4.1.6 Station operating costs are missing from the above analysis. Four new stations would require operation70, and assuming and indicative annual operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance, utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating costs.

Other Options 5.4.1.7 Alternative rolling stock options represent an opportunity to lower operating costs, therefore improving the operating funding position for the scheme. A series of alternative rolling stock options were evaluated on a high level (see Table 48).

Table 48: Alternative Rolling Stock Assessment

Lease Maintenance Energy Quality of Reliability Performanc Availability Cost Cost consumption interior e Class 769 Lowest Unknown Low Upgrade req Unknown Medium Soon Class 755 Highest Unknown Unknown New build Unknown Unknown New Build Class 379 High Unknown Low Refurbishment High Good Not currently may be available needed Class 350 High Unknown Medium Refurbishment Very Good In Flex may be High development needed Hybrid Medium Unknown Highest Refurbishment Medium Medium In DMU may be development needed

5.4.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to materially change the operating funding requirement.

Operating costs funding conclusions 5.4.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to WLO passenger revenue of £12-15m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding requirement and need for a significant operating subsidy.

5.4.1.10 The low level of passenger revenue relative to operating costs is significantly influenced by the nature of the WLO as an orbital train service, not directly serving central London and mostly contained within Travelcard fare zones 3 and 4. These characteristics, and the fact that the WLO creates new direct journey opportunities that abstract from other modes, leads to a decrease in average fare yield that offsets the income from new public transport trips.

70 Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be part of existing operational station by time of opening. 101

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

5.4.1.11 Housing and commercial development stimulated by the WLO creates opportunity for increased passenger revenue that could be significant in reducing the need for operating subsidy. This would be a matter for further consideration in future stages of the project.

5.4.1.12 Options to remove any operating subsidy will need to be identified as part of future phases of scheme development work.

102

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

6 Management Case

6.1 Description 6.1.1.1 The role of the Management Case is to assess whether a proposal is deliverable. It reviews evidence from similar projects, sets out project planning, governance structure, risk management, stakeholder management, benefits realisation and assurance.

6.1.1.2 TfL and/ or Network Rail would prepare an Assurance and Approvals Plan.

6.1.1.3 A Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for the project. Prior consultation on the proposed Old Oak Overground stations has indicated that there is local support for the introduction of passenger services on the Dudding Hill line in west London.

6.1.1.4 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles and TfL would ensure robust project reporting mechanisms are in place.

6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects 6.2.1.1 TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing significant infrastructure projects and securing necessary consents required.

6.2.1.2 This includes network extensions such as the Northern Line Extension on the London Underground network and the East London Line Extension from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction on the London Overground network. TfL also has experience in delivering new/ upgraded stations on the existing rail network such as Langdon Park DLR station and Wood Lane tube station.

6.3 Consents Strategy

6.3.1.1 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has been identified that the principal consent likely to be required to authorise the works (including land acquisition) is a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). There are also other types of planning, heritage and environmental consents that are likely to be required. The Strategy is a live document that would be subject to ongoing internal review and be updated as necessary.

6.3.1.2 The project would have a dedicated TfL Consents Advisor(s). Supported by the west London LPAs through the WLA, they would provide guidance on all planning matters, be involved in discussions and negations with the relevant local planning authorities and stakeholders and manage external 103

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

planning and environmental specialists undertaking assessment work and preparing the documents required for submissions. The Consents Advisor(s) would be involved in the preparation and submission of the consents applications, post-submission work such as preparing for a Planning Inquiry, drafting representations and conditions, and post- decision work such as secondary consents (approval of details or amending conditions).

6.4 Project assumptions 6.4.1.1 At this early stage some key project assumptions have to be made. The management case has been prepared on the basis of TfL’s approach but this is subject to change if there is a change of project sponsor and/ or delivery agent.

6.4.1.2 It is assumed that TfL would cooperate with and have support from WLA LPAs, Network Rail and other relevant organisations regarding the progression of the WLO project.

6.4.1.3 A funding study has been commissioned by Mott MacDonald, and has been used to inform the Economic case and Financial case. It is assumed that sufficient funding would be available to support the planning and development stages of the project although no funding has been formally secured.

6.4.1.4 It is assumed that land required for the build and operation of new railway infrastructure could be acquired through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004).

6.5 Project risk 6.5.1.1 TfL considers the scheme to be relatively standard in terms of project risk, given the company’s extensive experience in revitalising underutilised railway infrastructure, notably the extension of the London Overground from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction.

6.5.1.2 Project risk would be actively managed according to best practice principles and the stage at which the project is at. The full involvement of the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and through the WLA would help minimise planning policy and other regulatory risks.

6.5.1.3 Some risk is carried in the aforementioned assumptions that are necessary to make, at this stage.

6.5.1.4 Should the scheme be developed further, a comprehensive risk management strategy would be implemented which would improve the accuracy of forecast costs and economic appraisal.

104

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

6.6 Governance 6.6.1.1 TfL would ensure that strong project governance principles are followed.

6.6.1.2 An organisational structure has been proposed, which is subject to change as project requirements and external processes are identified in a detailed manner.

Figure 36: Proposed project governance structure

6.6.1.3 The project would be subject to both TfL and local authority governance procedures.

6.6.1.4 At this stage, the project is overseen by a working group at TfL. The group meets fortnightly and meets regularly with WLA LPAs and Network Rail.

6.7 Assurance 6.7.1.1 The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s established project assurance procedures which include assurance at three levels: internal, Programme Management Office (PMO) and external.

105

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

Internal assurance procedure

6.7.1.2 TfL uses a number of mechanisms to improve the management of its major projects in order to ensure the objectives and benefits of a scheme at inception are realised following implementation. TfL’s project management framework, known as Pathway, provides consistency in approach and the tools required for planning and delivery teams, whilst retaining flexibility in its application to manage and control a project. Embedded into Pathway is a delivery assurance process using stage gates, upon which TfL utilises industry-leading external expertise to review and challenge all aspects of the project.

6.7.1.3 The number and timing of the stage gates are established by the delivery organisation, based on guidance in Pathway, and informed by a characterisation tool that considers project factors such as scale, complexity, novelty, project team experience and strategic importance. A number of products are required to be completed to provide evidence at the stage gate that the project is fit to proceed to the next stage.

6.7.1.4 Products are outputs that are signed off by authorised individuals, and include such documents as project execution plans, risk management plans, project estimates and design compliance certificates.

6.7.1.5 Underlying these stage gates are a number of assurance activities conducted by both TfL and the suppliers and include activities such as design reviews, safety assessments, risk reviews, commercial assessments, estimate validation, material testing and product testing.

Programme Management Office review

6.7.1.6 The PMO is part of TfL but is not accountable for delivery. These reviews are typically Integrated Assurance Reviews (IAR), undertaken by a combination of PMO staff, consultant external experts (EE) or peer groups from outside the delivery organisation.

External assurance procedure

6.7.1.7 TfL has the option of establishing an Independent Peer Review Group (IPRG). This approach has been followed for other major TfL projects. If appropriate, the IPRG could be appointed should the project progress further.

Network Rail assurance process

6.7.1.8 The project would also be subject to Network Rail’s Governance for Railways Investment Projects (GRIP) assurance process.

106

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

6.8 Communication and stakeholder management 6.8.1.1 Prior consultation on the proposed Old Oak Common London Overground stations has indicated that there is support for the introduction of passenger services on the Dudding Hill line, which is within the scope of the WLO project.

6.8.1.2 A comprehensive Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for the project in conjunction with the west London LPAs. The project team would be responsible for keeping stakeholders appropriately engaged.

6.8.1.3 The Stakeholder Management Plan would provide a brief on the objectives of the stakeholder engagement, target audience and methodology. This would be updated and expanded as required.

6.8.1.4 Currently, quarterly project updates are provided to a stakeholder group. Members of this group include WLA LPAs and Network Rail.

6.9 Project reporting 6.9.1.1 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles. TfL would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting processes.

6.9.1.2 These would align with the project governance framework, integrating key stakeholder requirements, facilitating continuous monitoring and incorporating accurate performance measurement. The purpose of this is to provide accurate provide accurate project information in a timely manner to ensure well informed decisions are made and appropriate action is taken.

6.10 Project milestones and timescales 6.10.1.1 Table 49 outlines key project milestones.

Table 49: Project milestones Milestone Description Date

Further feasibility 2019-2020 Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022 Construction Early 2020s Operation  2026 for Phase 1  2029 for Phase 2

107

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

7 Summary

7.1 Overall Assessment

7.1.1.1 The WLO scheme has the potential to address three critical strategic issues facing west and north west London . A new rail service could bring land into use for housing and employment, and link Opportunity Areas and town centres together to drive sustainable growth in the sub-region.

. A new orbital transport link would provide the connectivity needed to address public transport severance between west and north London, notably between Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent Cross/Cricklewood. The WLO would enable direct journeys between the Hounslow Loop and North London line, enabling people from across west and north west London to directly access employment clusters such as the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’ and Park Royal. Furthermore, by providing a high quality orbital public transport link, with interchanges with key radial routes at Brent Cross West, Neasden, Harlesden, Old Oak and Hounslow, the WLO would make enable one-stop journeys to multiple employment centres and Opportunity Areas across the sub-region for residents and in-commuters from the Wider South East.

. The provision of new public transport and connectivity could deliver benefits to the wider transport system. The WLO could encourage mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes which would help to reduce congestion. The scheme would provide crowding relief on some of the busiest rail lines in the sub-region, such as the Piccadilly line.

7.1.1.2 The 8tph WLO scheme has been tested, alongside sensitivities considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

7.1.1.3 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7 year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for the scheme are projected to begin after 2029. This means that there would be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme. Although selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the scheme on present value terms, further work to confirm and then secure the necessary funding is required.

108

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

7.1.1.4 Operating costs exceed revenue for both the 8tph scheme and alternative 4tph scheme. Further work would be required to close this subsidy gap. Housing growth could create opportunity for increased revenue.

7.2 Next Steps

7.2.1.1 Based on the conclusions of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the scheme to be taken forward to the next stage of business case development.

7.2.1.2 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to identify the preferred service pattern, develop a financing strategy, and further develop options to close the subsidy gap relating to operating costs.

109

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

8 Glossary

Glossary

Community Planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local Infrastructure Levy authorities to deliver infrastructure to support development. New (CIL) development of more than 100sqm or 1 dwelling is potentially liable for the levy.

Fixed Track Access Charge payable by franchised passenger operators that recovers any Charge remaining income required to meet Network Rail’s total revenue requirement.

Good Growth The concept of delivering new homes, neighbourhoods and workspaces in a way that creates successful, inclusive and sustainable places. In a transport context this involves designing places that better facilitate active travel and the use of public transport, rather than the private car.

Healthy Streets Approach to planning that puts people and their health at the centre of Approach decision making. Adopted by TfL to improve air quality, reduce congestion and help make London’s diverse communities greener, healthier and more attractive places to live and work.

Independent Peer A group of independent subject experts that are selected to scrutinise a Review Group (IPRG) [transport] project.

London Transportation Multi-modal strategic transport model of London and its surrounds. LTS Studies Model (LTS) models how many trips there are likely to be, their origins and destinations and their modes of transport. Used to assess the impact of a transport scheme or development.

Opportunity Area Designated area of major brownfield land in London that has significant capacity for development, typically being able to accommodate at least 5,000 new jobs and/ or 2,500 new homes.

Railplan Strategic Public Transport Model for London and the South East. Calculates the likely route and service choices of public transport users and the resulting levels of crowding on public transport networks.

Strategic Housing Technical study used to determine the quantity and suitability of land Land Availability potentially available for housing development. A London-wide SHLAA is Assessment (SHLAA) carried out to determine borough housing targets, which form a key part of the London Plan.

Web-Based Application uses PTAL to assess connectivity to the public transport Connectivity network, combining walk time to the network with service wait times. Assessment Toolkit Through the use of Time Mapping Analysis (TIM), connectivity throughout (WebCAT) the transport network (i.e. how far a traveller can go) is expressed as a series of travel time catchments.

110

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

List of Acronyms

CAZ Central Activities Zone CIL Community Infrastructure Levy DfT Department for Transport FTAC Fixed Track Access Charge GLA Greater London Authority GRIP Governance for Railway Investment Projects GWML Great Western Main Line HS2 High Speed 2 IPRG Independent Peer Review Group LB "_" London Borough of "_" LPA Local Planning Authority LSIS Locally Significant Industrial Site LTS London Transportation Studies Model MTS Mayor's Transport Strategy NFE Total Financial Effect NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPV Net Present Value OA Opportunity Area OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework ORR Office for Rail and Road PMO Project Management Office PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level PV Present Value of Project Cost PVB Present Value of Social Benefit SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SIL Strategic Industrial Land/ Location SOBC Strategic Outline Business Case TfL Transport for London TIM Time Mapping Analysis TPH Trains per Hour TWAO Transport Works Act Order WebCAT Web-Based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit WLA West London Alliance WLO West London Orbital WTT Working Timetable

111