EALING BROADWAY INTERCHANGE STUDY
Final Report August 2010 EALING BROADWAY INTERCHANGE STUDY
Final Report August 2010
Prepared for: Prepared by:
London Borough of Ealing Steer Davies Gleave Perceval House 28-32 Upper Ground 14-16 Uxbridge Road London London SE1 9PD W5 2HL +44 (0)20 7910 5000 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Contents
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 2 EALING BROADWAY ...... 5 The Study Area ...... 5 Highway Network ...... 6 London Underground & National Rail Services ...... 7 Bus Services ...... 7 Taxis ...... 9 Interchange ...... 10 Pedestrian Environment ...... 11 Cycle Network ...... 11 Urban Realm ...... 13 3 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND INITIATIVES ...... 15 Ealing Broadway Interchange Feasibility Study, Halcrow ...... 15 Crossrail ...... 19 Arcadia Development...... 20 Ealing Broadway Study, Urban Studio (Tribal Group) ...... 20 4 OPTION DEFINITION ...... 23 5 APPRAISAL ...... 25 Approach ...... 25 Methodology ...... 26 Scoring ...... 28 6 OPTION DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ...... 29 Design Team ...... 29 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 30 Existing Arrangement...... 31 General Approach ...... 31 Costings ...... 32 Option 1a ...... 34 Option 3c ...... 39 Option 4 ...... 45 Option 5 ...... 49 Option 7 ...... 64 Option 12 ...... 68
Contents Figures
Option 13 ...... 71 Option 14 ...... 74 Option 15 ...... 79 Option 16 ...... 83 7 BUS NETWORK ANALYSIS ...... 88 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 92 Study Objectives ...... 92 Appraisal Results Summary ...... 92 Recommendations ...... 92 Way Forward ...... 95
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Ealing Broadway Area Overview ...... 6 Figure 2.2 Station Entrance / Exit ...... 8 Figure 2.3 Existing Bus Network ...... 8 Figure 2.4 Bus Stop and Stand Arrangements ...... 9 Figure 2.5 Station Broadway: Pedestrian Congestion ...... 12 Figure 2.6 Existing Cycle Parking ...... 12 Figure 2.7 Urban Realm – Key Issues ...... 14 Figure 6.1 Existing Arrangement ...... 31 Figure 6.2 Option 1a: General Arrangement ...... 34 Figure 6.3 Option 3c: General Arrangement ...... 39 Figure 6.4 Option 4: General Arrangement ...... 45 Figure 6.5 Option 5: General Arrangement ...... 49 Figure 6.6 Option 5: Schematic Cross Section ...... 51 Figure 6.7 Option 7: General Arrangement ...... 64 Figure 6.8 Option 12: General Arrangement ...... 68 Figure 6.9 Option 13: General Arrangement ...... 71 Figure 6.10 Option 14: Island Bus Station ‘A’ ...... 75 Figure 6.11 Option 14: Island Bus Station ‘B’ ...... 75 Figure 6.12 Option 14: General Arrangement ...... 76 Figure 6.13 Option 15: The Piazza ...... 79 Figure 6.14 Option 15: General Arrangement ...... 80 Figure 6.15 Option 16: A Radical Plan for Ealing - Overview ...... 83
Figures Tables
Figure 6.16 Option 16: A Radical Plan for Ealing - Elevation ...... 84 Figure 6.17 Option 16: General Arrangment ...... 85 Figure 7.1 Existing Bus Network ...... 89
TABLES
Table 1.1 Option Appraisal Summary ...... 4 Table 3.1 Halcrow Appraisal Summary ...... 17 Table 6.1 Option 1a: Appraisal Summary ...... 36 Table 6.2 Option 1a: Costs Summary ...... 36 Table 6.3 Option 3c: Costs Summary ...... 42 Table 6.4 Option 3c: Appraisal Summary ...... 43 Table 6.5 Option 4: Costs Summary ...... 47 Table 6.6 Option 4: Appraisal Summary ...... 48 Table 6.7 Option 5: Costs Summary ...... 57 Table 6.8 Option 5: Profit-driven Development Scale ...... 59 Table 6.9 Option 5: Appraisal Summary ...... 62 Table 6.10 Option 7: Costs Summary ...... 66 Table 6.11 Option 7: Appraisal Summary ...... 66 Table 6.12 Option 12: Appraisal Summary ...... 69 Table 6.13 Option 13: Appraisal Summary ...... 72 Table 6.14 Option 14: Appraisal Summary ...... 77 Table 6.15 Option 15: Appraisal Summary ...... 81 Table 6.16 Option 16: Appraisal Summary ...... 86 Table 7.1 Existing Bus Frequencies ...... 89 Table 7.2 Existing Bus Stop & Stand Arrangements ...... 90 Table 7.3 Annual Growth in Bus Usage ...... 91 Table 8.1 Option Appraisal: Results Summary ...... 93 Appendix Table A.1 Option 1a: User Experience ...... 97 Appendix Table A.2 Option 1a: Feasibility ...... 98 Appendix Table A.3 Option 1a: Deliverability ...... 98 Appendix Table A.4 Option 3c: User Experience ...... 100 Appendix Table A.5 Option 3c: Feasibility ...... 101 Appendix Table A.6 Option 3c: Deliverability ...... 102
Tables Appendices
Appendix Table A.7 Option 4 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 104 Appendix Table A.8 Option 4 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 105 Appendix Table A.9 Option 4 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 106 Appendix Table A.10 Option 5 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 108 Appendix Table A.11 Option 5 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 109 Appendix Table A.12 Option 5 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 110 Appendix Table A.13 Option 7 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 112 Appendix Table A.14 Option 7 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 113 Appendix Table A.15 Option 7 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 114 Appendix Table A.16 Option 12 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 116 Appendix Table A.17 Option 12 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 117 Appendix Table A.18 Option 12 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 118 Appendix Table A.19 Option 13 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 120 Appendix Table A.20 Option 13 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 121 Appendix Table A.21 Option 13 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 122 Appendix Table A.22 Option 14 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 125 Appendix Table A.23 Option 14 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 126 Appendix Table A.24 Option 14 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 127 Appendix Table A.25 Option 15 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 129 Appendix Table A.26 Option 15 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 130 Appendix Table A.27 Option 15 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 131 Appendix Table A.28 Option 16 Appraisal: User Experience ...... 133 Appendix Table A.29 Option 16 Appraisal: Feasibility ...... 134 Appendix Table A.30 Option 16 Appraisal: Deliverability ...... 135 Appendix Table D.1 PCE: Market Value Comparison ...... 145 Appendix Table D.1 Property Cost Estimate (as at 8th April 2010) ...... 146
APPENDICES
A DETAILED OPTION APPRAISAL B COST ESTIMATES C PROPERTY COST ESTIMATE D TRAFFIC NETWORK FLOWS Do not delete this section break
Appendices Interchange Study
1 Executive Summary
Ealing Broadway Interchange Study 1.1 This study has been commissioned due to the aspirations of the London Borough of Ealing, Transport for London and Crossrail to improve interchange and the environment at Ealing Broadway and has drawn upon previous work to recommend a robust and auditable long-term solution for the interchange arrangements at Ealing Broadway.
Study Objectives 1.2 The principal aim of this study is to develop a robust and auditable long-term solution to the interchange arrangements at Ealing Broadway and as indicated in the Brief, the preferred option must meet a number of key objectives so will need to:
I Provide the most effective solution for dealing with bus operational and infrastructure needs to enhance bus/rail interchange
I Complement the new planned high-quality station forecourt and provide a sense of arrival
I Enhance the visual and physical connections between the station and town centre/Haven Green
I Provide better information and interchange facilities
I Reduce severance and the need for crossing of roads
I Ensure there is no net loss of open space at Haven Green
I Quantify, justify and seek to mitigate any adverse impact on traffic flows and movements within the study area
I Enhance pedestrian and cycle routes to and from the station
I Ensure that the facilities can accommodate transport usage growth 1.3 One of the key determinants in any solution has been how to effectively deal with bus services and operations. This element has been assessed in terms of function, access, impact, timing, costs and buildability (including land and property issues, air space rights and commercial viability). Any preferred option would need to be ‘future-proof’ and able to cope with future demands.
Option Development 1.4 The Options assessed as part of this study are based upon those included in the preceding Ealing Broadway Interchange Feasibility Study, Halcrow Group Ltd (May 2006) and the more recent Ealing Broadway Station Area and Interchange - Assessment of Improvement and Development Options, Tribal Group / Urban Studio (February 2010). These have been supplemented by two further options which are based on designs proposed by local interested parties. An overview of
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
1 Interchange Study
the concept designs developed through feasibility to enable a more informed assessment of each option is provided below: 1.5 Option 1 - is based on a series of improvements and upgrades to the current layout. 1.6 Option 3b - would provide an ‘island’ bus station on the south side of Haven Green and entirely within Haven Green. 1.7 Option 3c – as 3b but with the provision of a bus station partially on the south side of Haven Green and require land acquisition and property demolition including the BBC car park and 7-10 Central Chambers.
1.8 Option 4 - is a revisit and development of the Glenkerrin planning application proposal with the bus stop and stands relocated from the diagonal (which will be closed) and repositioned on the (widened) eastern side of Haven Green. 1.9 Option 5 - would provide a bus station above the District line tracks with access via a new link which would require the demolition of at least Nos. 41-43 Haven Green. The Haven Green diagonal would also be closed and buses would head north on a two-way section of Haven Green east. 1.10 Option 7 - is broadly similar to Option 5 but sees the addition of a new southbound, exit-only link from the bus station (probably requiring the demolition of No. 21) onto The Mall through a new signalised junction to manage bus movements. 1.11 Option 12 - includes the creation of a two-way bus or public transport ‘mall’ along Haven Green East and Station Broadway with the diagonal closed and general traffic diverted to use Spring Bridge Road, which will need to be widened including the bridge over the national rail lines. 1.12 Option 13 - is based on the option to close Station Broadway between the Haven Green diagonal and The Mall so that it is only available for pedestrians and cyclists to use. It includes the provision of a bus station over the LU tracks as per Option 7, closure of the diagonal, provision of a turning circle for access and taxis opposite the forecourt and requires all traffic to again use a widened two-way link on Spring Bridge Road. 1.13 Option 14 - is a variation on Option 12 where Haven Green East / Station Broadway becomes two-way for buses which can then serve a new bus station which would sit in place of the station forecourt. This option would require the demolition of Central Chambers or relocation of the proposed Crossrail station to accommodate bus and traffic movements (southbound general traffic would continue to use Haven Green East / Station Broadway). 1.14 Option 15 - is a variation of Option 3 and includes a new bus station of the same layout over the network rail line but the most significant change would see the closure of The Broadway (between Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway) and provision of a new, two-way link road around the area. 1.15 Option 16 - includes a new underground bus station which would sit beneath a completely redeveloped ‘Arcadia site’. Access to and from the bus station would be made using a new ramp in place of Spring Bridge Road. The Haven Green
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
2 Interchange Study
diagonal and Station Broadway would be closed and a replaced by a new two-way link which reconnects all traffic with Haven Green West.
Appraisal 1.16 The adopted approach has been designed to be a robust and transparent assessment method in order to evaluate each option in an objective and consistent manner. The selection process lead to the eventual preferred option and provides well-reasoned justification for arriving at the preferred scheme. 1.17 The following criteria have been devised to highlight the trade-offs between the various options as well as any potential conflicts that may arise and are designed to encompass the overall objectives of the study. The criteria are grouped under three broad themes and each option has been assessed against a total of thirteen criteria:
I User Experience – Does the proposed option meet the users’ needs in the area and deliver a high quality experience?
I Option Feasibility – Is the option feasible given its operational requirements?
I Option Deliverability – How deliverable is the option?
Option Costs & Potential Development Opportunities 1.18 Given the high cost of some options and the limited funding available at present, it would potentially be necessary to fund some options through associated development, as a result we have initially assessed the construction costs before considering the economic viability of over site development. It should be noted that in some instances this in turn has an impact on the viability of some options.
Recommendation 1.19 The main body of the report gives details of the option performance against the objectives and appraisal criteria however the majority fail to address risks associated with buildability, property loss, costs and impact on Network Rail lines (which are notoriously difficult and costly projects). Table 1.1 provides an overview of the results of the appraisal of each option.
Preferred Option - Option 1a 1.20 Subject to detailed design, Option 1a has no negative impacts, meets the vast majority of the study objectives and also offers achievable improvements within a realistic timeframe. A further benefit is that Option 1a does not preclude any future improvements or options once it is built, thus enabling further improvements to be implemented should changes occur in terms of development opportunities or transport demands. It also affordable and low risk and as a result we recommend that Option 1a is considered to be the preferred option and is taken forward to detailed design.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
3 Interchange Study
TABLE 1.1 OPTION APPRAISAL SUMMARY
Category Criterion Option
1 3c 4 5 7 12 13 14 15 16
User Experience Interchange & Accessibility + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0 Urban Realm ++ - + + + 0 + + -- + Open Space ++ 0 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 ++ ++ Environmental Amenity 0 + + + + ------Feasibility Buildability ++ - + ------Bus Operation 0 ++ 0 ------Highway Network 0 - - 0 ------Bus Station Capacity + + 0 ++ ++ -- ++ -- -- - Deliverability Affordability ++ ------Land Use Policy ++ + + + + + + + + + Risks + - ++ ------Property Loss ++ -- ++ ------Acceptability ++ - + ------
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
4 Interchange Study
2 Ealing Broadway
Introduction 2.1 Ealing is one of West London’s major metropolitan centres and includes one of the busiest transport hubs in outer London - Ealing Broadway provides an interchange between local services out of Paddington and is also the terminus of the District and Central London Underground lines. With the addition of the new rail links as part of Crossrail the station is due to be rebuilt with an expected planning submission for works in early 2013. 2.2 Due to conflicting demands and piecemeal development over a lengthy period, access to and interchange at the station falls some way below the latest TFL Interchange Best Practice Guidance and is ‘of poor quality and lacking in a cohesive structure and function’. In recent years a number of studies have been commissioned to seek to address the shortfalls of the area but to date none have resulted in the culmination of a satisfactory and/or comprehensive option to address the existing interchange issues. 2.3 This study aims to draw upon the aspirations of the previous work to develop a robust and auditable long-term solution for the interchange arrangements at Ealing Broadway. One of the key determinants in any solution is how to effectively deal with bus services and operations, which needs to include consideration of both on- street and off-street bus station solutions assessed in terms of function, access, impact, timing, costs and buildability (including land and property issues, air space rights and commercial viability). The preferred option would need to be ‘future- proof’ and able to cope with future demands.
The Study Area
2.4 The study area is centred on what is effectively an island block which includes Haven Green and extends south until it reaches The Broadway. Figure 2.1 shows an overview of the area. 2.5 For the purposes of this study and as a number of the links share the same name, we have adopted the following definitions:
I Station Broadway - The Broadway between Haven Green & The Mall
I Haven Green East - Haven Green between Madeley Road & Station Broadway
I Haven Green West - Haven Green between Spring Bridge Road & Castlebar Road
I Haven Green North - Haven Green between Castlebar Road & Madeley Road
I Haven Green Diagonal - Haven Green between Station Broadway & Castlebar Road
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
5 Interchange Study
FIGURE 2.1 EALING BROADWAY AREA OVERVIEW
Highway Network
2.6 The retail centre is split in two by The Broadway (part of ‘Uxbridge Road’, A4020) which is a key arterial and also part of the Strategic Route Network (SRN). The Broadway is fed by two sets of one-way links:
I North of The Broadway –traffic can use Spring Bridge Road itself northbound (only) until it reaches Castlebar Road and those wishing to access Ealing Broadway Station or head southbound must use Station Broadway
I South of The Broadway – southbound traffic must use High Street, which lies opposite Spring Bridge Road, and northbound traffic returns via Bond Street slightly further west
2.7 Further afield the rail tracks limit the number of north-south routes and there are only four links (two of which are one-way) between Drayton Green Road and the North Circular Road.
Key Issues 2.8 The entire study areas suffers from consistent traffic congestion in peak hours and weekends, as the local and through traffic compete for roadspace. The conflicting demands of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists have seen both space and time taken away from general traffic at a number of locations. As a number of
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
6 Interchange Study
junctions are near capacity, there is little potential for growth in traffic despite the demand of potential new developments. 2.9 There is only limited scope to redistribute traffic across the wider network as the majority of surrounding streets are residential and will be sensitive to any increase in traffic flow that residents may perceive (Appendix D includes a series of network flow diagrams.)
London Underground & National Rail Services
2.10 Ealing Broadway is one of West London’s major transport hubs and provides Underground and National Rail connections to and from London; the combined station has nine platforms through which over 20 million passengers per annum pass through the station on foot:
I National Rail (Platforms 1 to 4) - Platforms 1 and 2 are for non-stop trains, with Platforms 1 and 3 serve trains leaving London, while 2 and 4 are into London
I Central line (Platforms 5 and 6) – Terminus for the Ealing Broadway Branch
I District Line (Platforms 7 to 9) – Terminus for the Ealing Broadway Branch 2.11 The station lies on the eastern side of Haven Green (shown in Figure 2.1) and offers access to the town centre and local bus services.
Key Issues 2.12 The main problems at the station include congestion, especially during peak periods, and very poor accessibility. (Note: As these issues are due to be addressed as part of the Crossrail station works, unless specifically affected by the ‘bus station’ options we have generally considered improvements to be outside the scope of this study).
Bus Services
2.13 There are currently 15 bus routes serving Ealing Broadway station (shown in Figure 2.3), as well as two additional night bus services. Haven Green acts as an important interchange between bus services and also with the rail/underground station.
Key Issues 2.14 Although there have been numerous improvements to bus priority infrastructure through work undertaken during both stages of the London Bus Initiative (LBI1 & LBI2), the London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) and Flagship project (Route 207), due to the high traffic flows and demand for kerbspace buses still suffer from frequent delays and reliability issues in the area.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
7 Interchange Study
FIGURE 2.2 STATION ENTRANCE / EXIT
FIGURE 2.3 EXISTING BUS NETWORK
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
8 Interchange Study
2.15 Figure 2.4 shows the bus stops and stands that are dispersed around the study area. Unfortunately the existing arrangement and facilities have a number of significant drawbacks including:
I Bus-to-bus interchange is poor with passengers given very limited information. Once they have worked out where they should go then they are required to walk long distances to stops;
I There is no room for physical expansion and capacity increase as the existing kerbspace is completely used for bus stops and bus stands; and
I The existing shelter and waiting space provision is inadequate which leads to further pedestrian congestion (especially on Haven Green East and as shown below).
FIGURE 2.4 BUS STOP AND STAND ARRANGEMENTS
Taxis
2.16 The feeder rank can currently accommodate up to 25 taxis and anecdotally appears to be fully used in peak periods and still operates at around 50% during the inter peaks. Destinations are varied and range from short local trips to those further afield such as Heathrow, Uxbridge, Northolt and Central London. Feedback from TfL: Taxi & Private Hire indicates that the layout generally ‘works well’ but could be improved through the provision of front portion (where taxis can pick up fares) immediately outside the station.
Key Issues 2.17 Although the existing taxi rank works well from an operational point of view and the visibility from the station forecourt is good, the rank suffers from poor accessibility:
I Those continuing their journey from the station must first cross Station Broadway using the existing pelican crossing and then cross unprotected at the mouth of the Haven Green east / diagonal junction
I For passengers arriving at Ealing Broadway there is no specific set-down point
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
9 Interchange Study
I Mobility impaired users cannot access the ramps from the rank and are often forced to board in the carriageway 2.18 Drivers benefit from an existing hut that houses a phone link and somewhat dated washroom facilities.
Interchange
Passenger Movements 2.19 The existing interchange between buses, taxis and London Underground / National Rail services at Ealing Broadway is very poor and disjointed; passengers leaving the station can only access street-level via a narrow exit and are given very limited information on bus services / taxis and where to catch them (as shown in the images overleaf). The following is a summary of the Bus Origin – Destination Surveys (BODS), Rail Origin – Destination Surveys (RODS) and Network Rail survey data analysis undertaken by TfL in May 2010 and shows the level of throughput in the area (more detailed analysis can be found in the accompanying Technical Note):
I 3800 passengers alight from buses at Ealing Broadway in the weekday AM peak to use LU or NR services
I This constitutes 50% of all passengers alighting from buses at Ealing Broadway in the AM peak from a total of 7700
I Interchange from buses makes up 37% of the total 10000 passengers entering Ealing Broadway in the AM peak
I 80% of passengers interchanging from bus in the weekday AM peak use LU, while 20% us NR
I The proportion of passengers exiting Ealing Broadway station in the PM peak interchanging to bus services is 40%, with 8800 station exits and 3500 boarding buses
Key Issues 2.20 The existing interchange between buses, taxis and London Underground / National Rail services at Ealing Broadway is very poor; passengers leaving the station can only access street-level via a narrow exit and are given very limited information on bus services / taxis and where to catch them (as shown). The difficulty in understanding the information is exacerbated by the small, poorly located signage and the busy conditions make it difficult to stop. 2.21 Once you reach the station forecourt, there is no additional information and the walking routes to the stops are obscured by parked cars, trees and buildings so it remains unclear where you need to go to continue your journey.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
10 Interchange Study
Pedestrian Environment
2.22 Pedestrian flows to, from and around Ealing town centre and the rail/underground station are very high and pedestrian congestion is commonplace at junctions and several other pinch points.
Key issues I No direct and unobstructed link is between the station and the main retail centre on the southern side of The Broadway
I Footway widths are narrow at several locations, especially within the forecourt immediately outside the station outside public house on the south eastern corner of Station Broadway
between the bus stops and shops on Haven Green East
I frequent overcrowding around the signalised junctions and pedestrians crossing points
I extensive guard railing which is also inconsistency applied
Cycle Network
2.23 There are two LCN routes within the study area:
I Route 51 - an east-west link along Uxbridge Road
I Route 249 - a north-south link along Windsor Road, past Ealing Broadway station and up Haven Green 2.24 Although these provide good north-south and east-west links to the station there are still a number of issues faced by cyclists:
I There is no northbound link on Station Broadway;
I Cycle parking is limited to 50 spaces near the station (centred on), is mainly accommodated using uncovered Sheffield stands near the taxi rank (opposite the station) and at a distance further from the station / forecourt than is desirable;
I Demand far exceeds supply and there is a need for more cycle parking, this is borne out through the number of bicycles frequently chained to other street furniture such as lamp columns and railings through the area; and
I Cycle theft at Ealing Broadway is the highest in the Borough and the need for additional more secure cycle parking and security is evident.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
11 Interchange Study
FIGURE 2.5 STATION BROADWAY: PEDESTRIAN CONGESTION
FIGURE 2.6 EXISTING CYCLE PARKING
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
12 Interchange Study
Urban Realm
2.25 Haven Green is an area of high quality open space and the only green space located to the north of Ealing town centre. Its green and open aspect, combined with tree planting around the perimeter and the residential uses on the north and western fringes, creates a calm environment, which contrasts with the busy transport interchange function of the south-eastern corner. The eastern side contains a large concentration of food and drink uses, with a greater emphasis on restaurants and cafes. 2.26 Most of the study area falls within the Haven Green Conservation Area. However the south east section from the railway extends into the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area. 2.27 Facing the west and north sides of Haven Green are mainly residential properties. 1, 3 and 5 and 6 –11 Haven Green to the West and Haven Green Court (the 1930’s block of flats) and 20-24 Haven Green to the north are locally listed buildings. Facing the east side are retail and other commercial businesses on the ground floor with residential uses above the older properties. 28 and 31-48 (except 36) Haven Green are locally listed buildings, whilst those north of the alleyway to the Squash Courts (31-40 Haven Green) are defined as having group or façade value. 36 Haven Green (Lewis’s Chemist shop) is a Grade II listed building. The Town House public house and the Carphone Warehouse building on the opposite corner are also buildings with group or façade value. The NatWest bank building, abutting the south east corner of the overall site, is a Grade II listed building. On Haven Green are two locally listed buildings, a cattle and drinking trough and cast iron railings, both in the north west corner 2.28 The only building structure located within the Green is an early 20 th century Cabmen’s shelter located with an area for waiting and turning of taxis in the south east corner of the Green. 2.29 Most of the area lies within the area defined on the Proposals Map to the adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004) (the UDP) as part of the Ealing Metropolitan Centre.
Key Issues 2.30 A plan showing the key urban realm issues is provided in Figure 2.7 overleaf.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
13
Interchange Study
3 Previous Studies and Initiatives
Introduction 3.1 The following is a summary of the preceding studies, relative initiatives and reasoning behind the commission of this study.
Ealing Broadway Interchange Feasibility Study, Halcrow
Introduction 3.2 Halcrow Group Limited were commissioned by Transport for London in 2005 to undertake a study which examined the feasibility of providing improved interchange facilities for passengers using buses and trains at Ealing Broadway. The study focused on three aspects of improvements at Ealing Broadway:
I Provision of the proposed Crossrail ticket hall scheme – regardless of whether Crossrail proceeds or not;
I Low-cost interchange improvements to make the interchange compliant with TfL’s best practise guidelines within existing constraints; and
I Provision of a new bus station, adjoining or near to the existing rail 1 station.
West London Tram, TfL 3.3 The West London Tram (also known as West London Transit) was a proposed on- street light rail line which was to run along the Uxbridge Road corridor from Hillingdon through to Hammersmith, including a the section through the study area. The scheme was promoted by Transport for London but opposed by the councils of all three London Boroughs through which it would run. The scheme was postponed indefinitely on 2 August 2007. 3.4 At the time of completing the Final Report for the Halcrow Study (May 2006) WLT was still being progressed, so it should be noted that much of the business case work includes significant changes to the public transport network when compared with the study’s base and existing scenario.
Option identification 3.5 Following a review of previous options and workshop attended by a wide range of interest parties within TfL, the issues associated with interchange at Ealing Broadway were examined and a long-list of options for interchange improvements produced. The TfL Interchange Board met in February 2006 to consider the workshop report and agreed which options were to be taken forward. The following final options studied were (it should be noted that there is some variation between numbered options and details between the Halcrow and Steer Davies Gleave Report):
1 In the Halcrow Report “Rail” refers to both London Underground and Network Rail services, unless specifically identified.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
15 Interchange Study
3.6 Halcrow Option 1 - was the construction of the Crossrail ticket hall, regardless of Crossrail proceeding. This would provide an enlarged ticket hall area as well as step-free platform access. TfL have a commitment to provide step-free access at this station by 2015. This report considers if there is a business case to construct the Crossrail scheme if Crossrail does not proceed. 3.7 Halcrow Option 2 - provides a series of improvements external to the station which would seek to bring the interchange more closely aligned with TfL’s Interchange Best Practise Guidelines. Initial concept designs have been prepared, but all show that the design of the interchange has to be compromised by the lack of forecourt area and the need to maintain suitable traffic circulation. 3.8 Halcrow Option 3 - is the construction of a bus station on the southern side of Haven Green, enabling buses to enter/exit the station from either the west of eastern sides. The minimum net loss of open space is 2,500m 2. 3.9 Halcrow Option 5 - is the construction of a bus station over the existing District Line shed. Buses would been to circulate and then travel into the bus station which would need to be set back from the road, since incorporating a bus station into railway station needs to allow for the Crossrail north-south concourse design. This has issues for the management of the resulting District Line platforms under the proposed bus station deck. 3.10 Halcrow Option 9 - would locate the proposed bus station over the National Rail lines between Springbridge Road and The Broadway. This requires the greatest level of third party land and would need to raft over the Network Rail tracks which run in a cutting, but could provide a bus station immediately opposite the station entrance.
Appraisal 3.11 The options were appraised within the main body of the report in accordance with the Department of Transport best practice in New Approach to Appraisal (NATA), the Mayors Transport Strategy and TfL Business Case. The output is summarised in Table 3.1.
Recommendations 3.12 The study brief required assessments to be for 2016. It was recommended that consideration should be given to revising the assessment period to +30 years, using LUL’s standard +0.5/annual growth rate beyond 2016. 3.13 With the exception of Option 5, which the report recommended was dropped, the Study concluded that each of the options be worked up in further detail. Full details are contained within the report but ultimately the study was not progressed until the Urban Studio (Tribal Group) work over three years later.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
16 Interchange Study
TABLE 3.1 HALCROW APPRAISAL SUMMARY
Option Benefit Positives Negatives Commentary Ratio
1 – New ticket 0.6:1 Provide step-free access in line with TfL Over-design if Crossrail does not May occur anyway with hall commitment to introduce at this station proceed. Crossrail scheme, unless before 2015. there is scope change.
2 – Interchange Financially Seeks to make interchange facilities Nil Design problems with improvement Positive* compliant with TfL best practise existing forecourt size and guidelines with respect to convenient maintaining existing traffic interchange, high quality design and movements. management
1 plus 2 1.4:1 Benefits of option 2 would “subsidise” the poor business case of option 1
3 – Bus station on 5.8:1 Lowest cost provision of bus station Disbenefits for passengers and operators. Funding of provision of Haven Green Environmental disbenefits – use of Haven replacement for net loss on Green would likely have significant local Haven Green not accounted opposition. for in report.
5 – Bus station 0.3:1 Provides a single rail-bus interchange. Most expensive option due to need to Bus station needs to extend over District Line Benefit for rail-bus and bus-bus trips pile along platforms. Significant over Central Line platforms. platforms disbenefits for walk-bus trips, bus operators. Environmental disbenefits for residents on Madeley Road. Need for 2 nd ticket hall for direct access between bus station and rail concourse.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
17 Interchange Study
Option Benefit Positives Negatives Commentary Ratio
5 sub-option + re- 0.2:1 Tram-bus-rail interchange under one Significant additional costs do not routed tram roof. Benefit for tram-bus interchange. outweigh benefits.
9 Bus station over 0.9:1 Only option which has positive benefit Highest property acquisition costs. May prejudice national Rail lines for bus passengers and bus operators. redevelopment of to the west Better than option 3 for positioning taxi commercial/retail to south. ranks and cycle racks. Network Rail may require compensation for loss of air rights no accounted for in report.
* = It should be noted that most of the benefits in option 2 are due to improvements to bus passenger ambience. Should a bus station option be pursued, then these ambience benefits should not be double counted i.e., it is not possible to add option 2 to options 5 or 9.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
18 Interchange Study
Crossrail
3.14 With a budget of £15.9 billion Crossrail will provide a new high frequency, convenient and accessible between London and the South East and from 2017 it will link Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east via new twin tunnels under central London.
3.15 Ealing Broadway will be included as one of five stops within the London Borough of Ealing served by Crossrail. Although it is likely to increase footfall at the station, Crossrail will make travelling to and from Central London easier and quicker, and also reduce overcrowding on other lines to and from the centre. 3.16 Although preliminary works commenced on some Central London stations in 2009, a planning submission for works at Ealing Broadway is not due until early 2013. The railway will open when full construction is completed in 2017. 3.17 At Ealing Broadway the proposals includes longer mainline platforms for the 10- carriage Crossrail trains, a new ticket hall at street level, an over bridge connecting all mainline and underground platforms, escalators to the busiest platforms and lifts to all platforms. 3.18 Although the Crossrail scheme may be subject to review following the recent Central Government elections, it is believed that the central section, which includes Ealing Broadway, will still be taken forward.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
19 Interchange Study
Arcadia Development
3.19 Except for a small area on the south-eastern corner at the junction of Station Broadway and Uxbridge Road, the Arcadia site covers the vast majority of the area between Ealing Broadway station and Spring Bridge Road. 3.20 Original plans focused on major redevelopment of the site to include seven blocks of between 7 - 26 storeys, which would have been mainly residential but with about additional retail floorspace, bridging the railway to bring the frontages up to the edge of Haven Green. 3.21 Although the application was approved by Ealing's Planning Committee in December 2008, following a Public Inquiry on 7 December 2009, the inspector’s report and Secretary of State concluded that the planning application should be rejected. At this stage we are unsure what the future will bring for the site but it is likely that any developments will need to include a stronger emphasis on integrated public transport provision and fit with proposals for the transport interchange proposals centred on Ealing Broadway station.
Ealing Broadway Study, Urban Studio (Tribal Group)
Station Forecourt and Haven Green Transport Interchange Options Study 3.22 Urban Studio was commissioned in October 2009 to provide an outline assessment of the interchange improvement options for Ealing Broadway Station Forecourt and Haven Green. The assessment process was based on allocating a score per option when considering:
I Ealing Broadway as a strategic interchange Create interchange benefits for users (all modes, but priority to rail, bus and pedestrians) Ensure interchange functionality for operators (all modes but priority to rail and bus) Provide interchange capacity for growth (or potential for growth)
I Ealing Broadway as a destination / place Improve local accessibility (to station, Haven Green, town centre i.e. other than interchange)
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
20 Interchange Study
Protect and enhance local environment and assets (open space, public realm, buildings) Enhance regeneration potential and value (enhance destination value of Ealing Broadway)
I Deliverability Ensure that scheme can be implemented in step with demand (funding, risk, value, timescale) 3.23 Table 3.2 gives is a summary of the options which were classed as Green (satisfies most criteria well), Amber (has potential to satisfy criteria) or Red (failed to satisfy most criteria and should be discounted without further study. 3.24 The report indicates that Options 4 (bus stops and stands relocated to the east side of Haven Green) and 12 (Creation of a ‘Bus Mall’ on Haven Green East and The Broadway with general traffic diverted to use a new two-way link on Spring Bridge Road and the diagonal through Haven Green closed) are favoured but all options will require further assessment of their impact on bus operations, demand, layout and development proposals, including:
I Bus capacity of existing and possible future bus facilities
I Future passenger demand with Crossrail, and the capacity required to cope
I Bus route reshaping plan: objectives, opportunities, programme, to meet wider Borough transport needs
I Bus station versus on-street bus facilities operational pros and cons
I Over the London Underground tracks bus station options funding and viability
I Design of off-street bus station: access and internal layout
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
21 Interchange Study
Table 3.2 Urban Studio Options Summary
Option Description
A. Upgrading and minor works
0 Do nothing/little
1 Improved and upgraded facilities, forecourt improvements
2 Widen diagonal road to provide additional stops
B. Involving significant reconfiguration of the area
3a Bus station on south side of Haven Green, north of trees
3b Bus station on south side of Haven Green, north of BBC car park boundary
3c Bus station on south side of Haven Green taking car park
4 Bus stops and stands relocated to the east side of Haven Green
C. Involving major redevelopment & reconfiguration of the area
5 Bus station above Underground tracks
6 Bus station over National Rail platforms (no specification)
7 Bus station over District and Central Line tracks plus bus exit to The Mall
8 Bus station over NR tracks and BBC car park; Central Chambers
9 Add mini bus station on part of Arcadia site (3 sub options)
10 Add mini bus station to rear of Haven Green east side (not specified)
11 Add mini bus station on NE corner of Broadway/Mall junction
D. Further options requiring restructuring of traffic and bus routes
12 Creation of a ‘Bus Mall’ along Haven Green East and Station Broadway, with general traffic operating two-way on Springbridge Road and the diagonal will need to be closed
13 Broadway closed (pedestrians and cycles only) plus option 7 or 8
14 Bus station at station forecourt, reposition Crossrail station entrance
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
22 Interchange Study
4 Option Definition
Objectives 4.1 The principal aim of this study is to build upon the preceding work and develop a robust and auditable long-term solution to the interchange arrangements at Ealing Broadway. As indicated in the Brief, the preferred option must meet a number of key objectives so will need to:
I Provide the most effective solution for dealing with bus operational and infrastructure needs to enhance bus/rail interchange;
I Complement the new planned high-quality station forecourt and provide a sense of arrival;
I Enhance the visual and physical connections between the station and town centre/Haven Green;
I Provide better information and interchange facilities;
I Reduce severance and the need for crossing of roads;
I Ensure there is no net loss of open space at Haven Green;
I Quantify, justify and seek to mitigate any adverse impact on traffic flows and movements within the study area;
I Enhance pedestrian and cycle routes to and from the station; and
I Ensure that the facilities can accommodate transport usage growth.
Options: Long List 4.2 The options included within this report were originally defined as part study brief and were essentially taken from the Urban Studio: Tribal Group report. Having review these options and following discussion with the client team and stakeholders two further options, which were submitted to Ealing Council by interested stakeholders, were added to the long list. 4.3 Aside from the ‘Halcrow Options’ no plans have previously been drawn up for the vast majority of options. To ensure we understood the work previously undertaken by Urban Studio: Tribal Group we held a meeting with Tim Pharoah before drawing up the options below. The feasibility designs developed as part of this study are provided in Chapter 6. 4.4 Option 1a - is based on a series of improvements and upgrades to the current layout. It was originally considered as Option 2 within the Halcrow Report. 4.5 Option 3b - would provide a bus station on the south side of Haven Green and entirely within Haven Green. It was originally considered as Option 3b within the Halcrow Report. 4.6 Option 3c - would see the provision of a bus station on the south side of Haven Green and require land acquisition and property demolition including the BBC car
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
23 Interchange Study
park and 7-10 Central Chambers. It was originally considered as Option 3c within the Halcrow Report. 4.7 Option 4 - is a revisit and development of the Glenkerrin planning application proposal with the bus stop and stands relocated from the diagonal (which will be closed) and repositioned on the (widened) eastern side of Haven Green. 4.8 Option 5 - would provide a bus station above the District and Central line tracks with access via a new link which would require the demolition of at least Nos. 41- 43 Haven Green. The Haven Green diagonal would also be closed and buses would head north on a two-way section of Haven Green east. Five variations of this scheme were previously included in the original Halcrow Report. 4.9 Option 7 - is broadly similar to Option 5 but sees the addition of a new southbound, exit-only link from the bus station (probably requiring the demolition of No. 21) onto The Mall through a new signalised junction to manage bus movements. 4.10 Option 12 - was proposed by Urban Studio (Tribal Group) as part of their Ealing Broadway Station Area and Interchange - Assessment of Improvement and Development Options Study (February 2010). Option 12 includes the creation of a two-way bus or public transport ‘mall’ along Haven Green East and Station Broadway with the diagonal closed and general traffic diverted to use Spring Bridge Road, which will need to be widened including the bridge over the national rail lines. 4.11 Option 13 - is based on the desire to close Station Broadway between the Haven Green diagonal and The Mall so that it is only available for pedestrians and cyclists to use. It includes the provision of a bus station over the LU tracks as per Option 7, closure of the diagonal, provision of a turning circle for access and taxis opposite the forecourt and requires all traffic to again use a widened two-way link on Spring Bridge Road. 4.12 Option 14 - is a proposal from Urban Studio (Tribal Group) and is a variation on Option 12 where Haven Green East / Station Broadway becomes two-way for buses which can then serve a new bus station which would sit in place of the station forecourt. This option would require the demolition of Central Chambers or relocation of the proposed Crossrail station to accommodate bus and traffic movements (southbound general traffic would continue to use Haven Green East / Station Broadway). 4.13 Option 15 - was submitted by a local resident and is a variation of Option 3. It includes a new bus station of the same layout over the network rail line but the most significant change would see the closure of The Broadway (between Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway) and provision of a new, two-way link road around the area. 4.14 Option 16 - was also submitted by a local resident and includes a new underground bus station which would sit beneath a completely redeveloped ‘Arcadia site’. Access to and from the bus station would be made using a new ramp in place of Spring Bridge Road. The Haven Green diagonal and Station Broadway would be closed and a replaced by a new two-way link which reconnects all traffic with Haven Green West.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
24 Interchange Study
5 Appraisal
Introduction 5.1 This chapter sets out the approach we have used to assess the various options. The first section explains the need for undertaking an option assessment exercise, and the second presents the proposed assessment criteria against which each option will be assessed. The third section of this chapter provides an example of how the assessment process has been documented. 5.2 After the appraisal methodology has been explained we have provided some background on the techniques used to determine the option scoring.
Approach
5.3 The approach adopted is designed to be consistent with the principles of both NATA and the TFL Business Case Development Manual (BCDM) and give a robust and transparent method of assessing the proposed options. Such an approach is necessary in order to evaluate all proposed options in an objective and consistent manner. This is important as it enables the selection process leading to the eventual preferred option to be scrutinised and provides well-reasoned justification for arriving at the preferred scheme. 5.4 The criteria used to evaluate the options are designed to encompass the overall objectives of the study. They are also devised to highlight the trade-offs between the various options as well as any potential conflicts that may arise. This allows informed decisions to be taken regarding the exclusion of options. The framework will act at this stage as a tool to sift the options we have and select a preferred option.
Assessment Criteria 5.5 The following criteria have been developed to enable the comparative assessment of the options against one another. The assessment takes account of both the construction impacts of the option and during its operation.
5.6 The criteria are grouped under three broad themes:
I User Experience – Does the proposed option meet the users’ needs in the area and deliver a high quality experience?
I Option Feasibility – Is the option feasible given its operational requirements?
I Option Deliverability – How deliverable is the option? 5.7 Each option will be assessed against the thirteen criteria described below and the following section gives an overview of each assessment criterion, the question posed and how it is has been appraised.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
25 Interchange Study
Methodology
User Experience
Interchange & Accessibility Does the scheme improve interchange opportunities between different modes of transport (Bus-LU/NR, Bus-Bus, Bus-Town Centre & All modes-Taxi)?
Is the passenger experience of interchange likely to be improved and the legibility of the interchange enhanced?
5.8 The appraisal of each option focuses on qualitatively assessing the proximity of modal services (including the effect of any barriers to movement such as controlled / uncontrolled carriageway crossings, etc).
Urban Realm How will the proposed scheme affect the aesthetics of the urban environment surrounding the station?
5.9 The urban realm proposals developed for all options consider the scope for improvements to Haven Green, the immediately surrounding streets, Ealing Broadway station forecourt and The Broadway to the junction with The Mall as a whole to provide a comprehensive and fully integrated approach. The appraisal and scoring for each Option in terms of the aesthetics of the urban environment surrounding the station has been lead by Burns + Nice.
Open Space Does the proposed scheme require land-take from Haven Green?
5.10 Each option has been assessed in terms of the net space of common land that forms Haven Green.
Environmental Amenity What impact will the scheme have on local noise, vibration and air quality levels?
5.11 The scoring for this option is based on a qualitative assessment of the option’s impact on noise, vibration and air quality levels during construction and operation.
Feasibility
Buildability Is the proposed option viable given all considerations e.g. street width/gradient, necessary major structures, adaptations required to hinterland, permissions, LU & NR track possessions, etc.?
5.12 A qualitative assessment has been made of the comparative difficulty of building each has been made to score each of the long list options.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
26 Interchange Study
Bus Operation How does the scheme impact on the operation of the bus network?
5.13 To assess the impact on bus operation we have calculated the total change in bus mileage as a result of the change in routing for each service as required of each option.
Highway Network How does the scheme impact the highway network?
5.14 This is based on the impact on network and junction delay for all traffic through the study area. We have used high level TRANSYT testing to model options such as two-way traffic on Spring Bridge Road and changes to the movements permitted at the Station Broadway junction with The Broadway. The model has been supplied by the TfL: Traffic Directorate – Network Performance Team and was developed for a recent UTC signal timings review.
Bus Station Capacity Does the scheme allow sufficiently for future growth in the market?
5.15 Bus usage in Ealing is expected to increase as a result of the anticipated growth in bus usage across London and following the introduction of Crossrail, currently planned for 2017. Although TfL: London Buses is currently preparing estimates of forecast post-Crossrail bus usage (due late 2010), in the interim we have allowed for passengers volumes on all routes to increase by 30% from 2008/09 levels (as agreed by the client team) to allow for underlying growth to 2017 and Crossrail. 5.16 Chapter 6 contains a summary of the impacts on individual routes this is likely to have, but essentially this criterion has been appraised by comparing the change in number of stops and stands available for each option when compared with the existing arrangement. We would suggest that this criterion is revisited when the TfL: London Buses – Network Planning analysis is complete.
Deliverability
Affordability How large is the cost for this option? Is it feasible that this amount of funding could be delivered?
5.17 The option costs have been calculated based on Franklin & Andrews’ estimates for each of the ‘main options’ (1a, 3c, 4, 5 & 7) and as requested by the client team, the other options have not been costed at this stage; the appraisal of these ‘high- numbered’ options (12-16) is therefore based on high-level assumptions and comparisons with the main options.
5.18 Other costs such as property acquisition and also some commentary on funding opportunities (including associated development) are included in Chapter 6.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
27 Interchange Study
Land use policy How compatible is the scheme with future land use developments/policies? How would the scheme impact on possible developer contributions?
5.19 The appraisal and scoring for Land Use Policy has been lead by CB Richard Ellis.
Risks How large are the risks associated with this scheme?
5.20 Risk has been scored based on an overview of the entire option and essentially if there are any insurmountable issues or ‘show-stoppers’.
Property Loss To what extent will the scheme involve the demolition property?
Acceptability How much Local Authority / Transport for London / private sector & developer/ public support are the scheme likely to receive?
5.21 The appraisal of this criterion is based on feedback from each of the interested parties and our view of the likely reaction from the public.
Scoring
Each option has been assessed against each of the agreed criteria by means of a score. Where appropriate, quantified values will be used instead of a score; for example the cost of the option under ‘Affordability’. The scoring scale used for other, unquantifiable criteria is designed to capture both the positive and negative performance of the options for each criterion, and this will be determined by consideration against the agreed business as usual (do minimum) state. A five point scale has been chosen, as illustrated below:
I Significant improvement (++ )
I Improvement (+)
I Neutral (0)
I Adverse (-)
I Significantly adverse (-- )
5.22 It is important to note that these scores are not additive; therefore they cannot be summed to produce an overall score for each option. This scoring method is designed purposely to be qualitative, in order that each option is considered with respect to how well it performs against each of the agreed criteria.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
28 Interchange Study
6 Option Design & Development
Design Team
6.1 The following is an overview of the design team used to develop the options through feasibility design.
Bill Kay
Qualifications: BEng, Chartered Engineer, MICE, MIHT 6.2 The design team has been lead by Bill Kay, Bill started his career in transportation planning and design in 1965. He has since been continuously engaged in transport infrastructure planning, design, construction or research; he is an expert in the planning and alignment design of highways, heavy rail, light rail and busways. 6.3 Bill worked on some of the first UK Bus Infrastructure Planning demonstration projects and has developed considerable expertise in this field. He has seen his schemes implemented in various UK towns from Aberdeen to Brighton and has worked on several park & ride schemes, more recently he has worked on a number of bus station/interchange designs including :
I Victoria Interchange Programme, Land Securities/TfL (2005-08)
I Galashiels Transport Interchange, Scottish Borders Council (2008)
I Dumfries Bus Interchange, Dumfries & Galloway Council (2007)
I Crystal Palace Park, London Development Agency (2006)
I Slough Bus Station, Slough District Council (2005)
Matthew Booley
Qualifications: BSc, PRIAN “Professional Certificate in Design and Management of the Public Realm” 6.4 Matthew is a design engineer with over 10 years of experience who began developing his skills through work on the Kensington High Street Regeneration project and has maintained these philosophies of simple yet effective design on other schemes. His background in computer aided design and he has led to a widespread experience from broad brush conceptual design to intricate construction detailing.
Lee Deacon
Qualifications: BEng, MSc 6.5 As well as managing this study Lee also completed the design of several options. Lee has managed several large bus priority and traffic management projects since he started at Steer Davies Gleave in 1999 and he has developed an in-depth knowledge of all aspects of highway design so that his work offers an all-inclusive approach taking schemes from identification, feasibility design, economic
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
29 Interchange Study
assessment, detailed design and consultation before continuing to offer assistance through to scheme implementation.
Stakeholder Engagement
6.6 Throughout the design process we have sought to involve key stakeholders to gain access to their specialist knowledge and also better understand their role in delivering and potential response to each of the option. As a result we have engaged with the following interested parties:
I LB Ealing: Strategic Transport
I LB Ealing: Regeneration
I LB Ealing: Landscape Development
I TfL: Interchange
I TfL: London Buses – Network Planning
I TfL: London Buses – Infrastructure Development
I TfL: London Underground
I TfL: Taxis & Private Hire
I TfL: Traffic Directorate (formerly DTO)
I TfL: Forward Planning (formerly Network Assurance)
I TfL: Surface Strategy and Business Development
I Crossrail
I Network Rail
I First Great Western
I Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd
I Save Ealing Centre
I Ealing BID
I Tim Pharoah (formerly of Urban Studio – Tribal Group)
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
30 Interchange Study
Existing Arrangement
6.7 For ease of comparison with the existing arrangement at Ealing Broadway we have included Drawing No. 22243601_100 (as shown in Figure 6.1).
FIGURE 6.1 EXISTING ARRANGEMENT
General Approach
Feasibility Design 6.8 Where possible we have tried to apply the following ‘baseline works’ and use a consistent approach when developing each of the options:
I Removal of the service road in front of the station and remodelling of the forecourt to improve the sense of place and first impression of Ealing for those arriving from the LU / NR services;
I Footway widening along the eastern side of Haven Green east to provide increased space for waiting bus passengers, ease north-south pedestrian movements and reduce congestion;
I Signalisation of the Haven Green / Madeley Road junction to improve pedestrian crossing facilities in this area and provide additional kerbspace on both sides of Haven Green east;
I Provision of fully-accessible and DDA-compliant bus stops;
I Provision of a new, nearside taxi ‘front portion’ and taxi totem closer to the station and forecourt the to improve the accessibility; and
I Provision of 57 cycle parking spaces (in line with TfL standards for a Category C station of 1 space per 600 entrants plus 30% uplift).
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
31 Interchange Study
Urban Design 6.9 From an urban design perspective we used the following baseline works for each of the options:
I Enhanced pedestrianised station forecourt with access road, low brick wall and majority of car parking removed
I Carriageway within study area to be resurfaced with anti-skid treatment
I Overall footways upgraded with Yorkstone paving
I Footpaths through Haven Green resurfaced with bound/bonded gravel
I New tree and shrub planting
I Additional cycle stands (covered where possible)
I Consistent treatment of street furniture and lighting appropriate for conservation area.
Costings
Construction Cost Estimates 6.10 Franklin & Andrews have provided construction cost estimates for each of Options 1a, 3c, 4, 5 & 7. The budget estimates have been priced using Franklin & Andrews’ estimating database based on the following:
I Quantified costs are priced at ‘high level rates’, for example, functional unit cost or all-in rates per metre square.
I Indirect costs are shown as percentage allowances, for example, Preliminaries, Design, & Management costs.
I Other costs are included as lump sums or other provisional allowances, for example, Land/Property purchase, Contingency, Inflation. 6.11 As requested by the client team, the other Options (12-16) have not been costed due to being unworkable and their appraisal is therefore based on high-level assumptions and comparisons with the main options.
Property Cost Estimates (PCE) 6.12 A summary of the work undertaken by CB Richard Ellis to ascertain the property acquisition cost estimates required to facilitate Options 5 and 7 following implementation of a compulsory purchase order including compensation assessed in accordance with the, so called, Compensation Code is given in Appendix C.
Funding Options 6.13 It should be noted that the original brief requested that a review of funding opportunities (with associated conditions and timings) should be undertaken as part of Stage 3 of the project. In order to ensure that early consideration of the potential funding sources, and hence any appropriate action could be taken, and so that the Option Assessment framework can be informed by possible funding requirements, we have considered the issue earlier in the project life. More detailed information on our initial research is provided in the accompanying
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
32 Interchange Study
Technical Note but essentially it appears that funding is most likely to come from LB Ealing’s LIP Settlement (as a Major Scheme application) and S106 contributions or a combination of both.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
33 Interchange Study
Option 1a
Improved and upgraded facilities including forecourt improvements 6.14 Option 1a is based on a series of improvements and upgrades to the current layout (it was originally considered as Option 2 within the Halcrow Report). 6.15 The following proposals are shown in and should be read in conjunction with Drawing No. 22243601_101a (also shown in Figure 6.2).
FIGURE 6.2 OPTION 1A: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
General Arrangement I Signalisation of the Haven Green / Madeley Road junction to improve pedestrian crossing facilities in this area and provide additional kerbspace on both sides of Haven Green east;
I The junction would replace the three existing pedestrian facilities (two pelican and one zebra crossing) and cater for all existing crossing movements and desire lines;
I Removal of stop B which is currently inaccessible and non-DDA compliant;
I Footway widening along the eastern side of Haven Green east to provide increased space for waiting passengers, reduce overcrowding and ease north- south pedestrian movements;
I Remodelling of the forecourt area;
I Provision of a new taxi ‘front portion’ and taxi totem, as shown in the accompanying image, thus allowing taxi users to board immediately outside the station without having to cross Station Broadway (controlled) and then the Haven Green diagonal (uncontrolled). (The feeder rank will remain as in the
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
34 Interchange Study
existing arrangement to maintain taxi standing capacity.) This will result in a significant improvement in accessibility.
Public Realm I Gain of open space land and improved pedestrian crossings at the north eastern edge of Haven Green due to realignment of junction and removal of roundabout.
I New tree and shrub planted area in extended footway at north eastern end of Haven Green (road)
I New footpath and tree planting along eastern edge of Haven Green
I Widened footpath and street tree planting on eastern side of Haven Green (road)/The Broadway
I Footpaths through Haven Green resurfaced with bound/bonded gravel
I Carriageway on Haven Green/The Broadway and diagonal through Haven Green resurfaced with anti skid treatment.
I 60 (17 additional) stands capable of parking 120 (36 additional) cycles
I Enhanced pedestrianised station forecourt with access road, low brick wall and car parking removed.
I Overall footways upgraded with Yorkstone paving
I Consistent treatment of street furniture and lighting appropriate for conservation area.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.16 The main changes involve extensions to and minor relocation of the stops and stands on the east side of Haven Green east. The set-down stop/stand for Route 65 on the west side of Haven Green east, which is currently not DDA-compliant, would be removed, and Route 65 buses would instead set down at stop X1 on the east side before pulling over to lay over at an extended stand (currently Z2) on the west side. This option retains 11 stands as existing, full details of the Route by Route arrangements can be found in the accompanying Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.17 The design for Option 1a is based on providing the maximum kerbspace for stopping / standing buses. With the removal of the service road as a loading / Kiss-and-ride facility this will have an impact on these activities. The final balance between the potentially conflicting needs of different users may only be established following public consultation.
Appraisal Summary 6.18 Table 6.2 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
35 Interchange Study
TABLE 6.1 OPTION 1A: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & + Buildability ++ Affordability ++ Accessibility
Urban Realm ++ Bus Operation 0 Land Use Policy ++
Open Space ++ Highway Network 0 Risk +
Environmental 0 Bus Station + Property Loss ++ Amenity Capacity
Acceptability ++
Costs & Programme 6.19 Table 6.3 gives a summary of the estimated cost to build Option 1a. A more detailed breakdown of the RIBA Stage D estimate is provided in Appendix B. Option 1a would have the shortest delivery time of any of the options considered. With consultation and detailed design undertaken, and a TfL: major scheme business case application made before the end of FY 2011/12, implementation could be programmed for 2012/13 and this could then tie in with the proposed Crossrail works (2013-16).
TABLE 6.2 OPTION 1A: COSTS SUMMARY
Item Cost
Streetscape Improvements £1,700,000
Signalisation of Haven Green east j/w Madeley Road £150,000
Main Contractors Preliminaries, OH & P & Design on Haven £350,000 Green work (@15%)
Property Acquisition £nil
Taxi / Bus Driver Facilities £500,000
Station Forecourt Parking Lease Buy-out* £200,000
Utilities* £500,000
Total £3,400,000
Risk & Contingency (@ 25%) £850,000
GRAND TOTAL £4,250,000
* = Estimate subject to detailed design and/or negotiation
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
36 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.20 The following is a summary of the key issues raised during the appraisal undertaken for Option 1a:
Pros I Improved interchange, accessibility and urban realm without loss of open space on Haven Green or property acquisition / demolition;
I Straight forward, low cost / risk build;
I No negative impact on bus operation or local traffic network;
I The scheme contains no major elements which would prohibit the development and implementation of any of the other options contained within this report and could therefore be seen as the first stage in delivering a ‘larger and more costly’ option should funding become available.
Cons I Any significant increase in bus service frequency and especially a requirement for additional standing capacity could only be met by changes to the bus network (i.e. extending and/or combining routes); and
I If this scheme is to be funded via TfL’s Major Scheme programme, producing a sufficiently positive Business Case may be difficult given the limited change to bus and general traffic journey times. It may however be possible to reduce the amount of funding required from this programme through supplementary funding such S106 contributions.
Variations 6.21 Madeley Road Roundabout Retained - Our initial modelling (using LINSIG) shows that the proposed signalisation of junction is likely to marginally exceed the 85% Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC) desired by TfL: Traffic Directorate. This assumes that the pedestrian stage is called every cycle and is a worst case scenario. 6.22 It should be noted that the area, as a roundabout, already suffers from congestion. As a result the introduction of signals which operate at or just over capacity may not increase delays at all but would improve pedestrian crossing facilities. With traffic likely to increase over time there may be a question mark over whether or not the junction could be “future-proof”, this would be virtually impossible under either scenario given the spatial restrictions imposed by Haven Green and the built environment. To fully understand the interaction of the different signal groups (linked under UTC) it may be necessary to complete a VISSIM model which can also include a more accurate assessment of the impact of pedestrians on the network. Alternatively it may be possible to increase the cycle times to improve junction capacity. 6.23 Should more detailed analysis and liaison with TfL show that this proposal is unacceptable it would be possible to retain the existing arrangement; the main disadvantage of doing so would make it more difficult to change the inaccessible and non-DDA compliant Route 65 stop (B) and foregoing the increase in kerbspace along the eastern side of Haven Green east. This is also likely to impact on loading
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
37 Interchange Study
and ‘kiss-and-ride’ facilities if space is reallocated from the current design to different kerbside uses. 6.24 Existing Taxi Facilities Retained - Provision of the new (front portion) taxi rank in front of the station may have an impact on accessibility for bus stops F & G. If the taxi facilities remain unaltered then it will not be possible to introduce the desired accessibility improvements as part of this option. 6.25 Option 1b - It would potentially be possible to provide the Option 1a proposals but include the closure of the Haven Green Diagonal. While the benefits would be broadly similar there would be an increase in traffic (general, buses and taxis) circulating through the town centre which would lead to increased junction delays at Station Broadway / The Mall and also The Broadway / Spring Bridge Road. As a result we have not included a more detailed design and appraisal of this option as it runs contrary the study objective to mitigate any adverse impact on traffic flows and movements within the study area.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
38 Interchange Study
Option 3c
Bus station on south side of Haven Green taking car park 6.26 Option 3c would see the provision of a bus station on the south side of Haven Green and require land acquisition and property demolition including the BBC car park and 7-10 Central Chambers. It was originally considered as Option 3c within the Halcrow Report.
6.27 The following proposals are shown in and should be read in conjunction with Drawing No. 22243601_103c (also shown in Figure 6.3).
FIGURE 6.3 OPTION 3C: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
General Arrangement I Provision of an ‘island’ bus station (in line with TfL’s preferred layout rather than previous Halcrow design);
I Closure of Haven Green diagonal to replace the majority of the common land lost through the provision of the bus station;
I Signalisation of the Haven Green / Madeley Road junction to improve pedestrian crossing facilities in this area and replace remaining of the common land lost through the provision of the bus station (no net loss overall);
I Provision of marked bays along the eastern side of Haven Green east to allow frontage loading and ‘kiss-and-ride’ facilities;
I Remodelling of the forecourt area;
I Provision of a new taxi ‘front portion’ to improve the taxi accessibility with slightly reduced capacity feeder rank along the western side of Haven Green east.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
39 Interchange Study
Public Realm I Gain of open space land and improved pedestrian crossings at north eastern edge of Haven Green due to realignment of junction and removal of roundabout;
I New tree and shrub planted area in extended footway at north eastern end of Haven Green east;
I New footpath and tree planting along eastern edge of Haven Green;
I Loss of open space land and 6no. trees in the southern part of Haven Green due to new bus interchange location;
I The Cabmen’s shelter by the present taxi rank would be removed;
I Need for root protection system to be constructed to provide protection where carriageway construction occurs within the defined tree protection zone;
I New tree planting along realigned southern edge of Haven Green;
I New paved traffic island with retained trees in unbound gravel areas at the centre of the bus interchange location;
I Gain of open space land through closing of diagonal road through Haven Green;
I Widened footpath and street tree planting on eastern side of Haven Green east / Station Broadway;
I Footpaths through Haven Green resurfaced with bound/bonded gravel;
I Carriageway on Haven Green / The Broadway and bus interchange area through Haven Green raised to provide a low 50mm upstand kerb and resurfaced with anti skid treatment;
I 81 (38 additional) stands capable of parking 162 (76 additional) cycles;
I Enhanced pedestrianised station forecourt with access road, low brick wall and car parking removed;
I Overall footways upgraded with Yorkstone paving; and
I Consistent treatment of street furniture and lighting appropriate for conservation area.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.28 The 13m wide central island would contain passenger facilities and would have two set-down and two pick-up stops, all capable of accommodating 3 buses. There would be standing space on the periphery for up to 12 buses (6 on each side). 6.29 Stops F and G in Station Broadway would be retained for buses heading on to The Broadway / The Mall. This option provides 12 stands, one more than existing, full details of the Route by Route arrangements can be found in the Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.30 The removal of Stop C (o/s Nos. 41-49 Haven Green east) would provide the opportunity to provide new loading and/or Kiss-and-ride facilities as shown.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
40 Interchange Study
Property Impacts 6.31 Option 3C would have a direct impact on the following key properties and land:
I BBC car park/surface car park to the north of railway lines (believed to be controlled by Glenkerrin on a long leasehold a sublet to the BBC)
I 9/10 Central Chambers (a public house)
I 8 Central Chambers (a delicatessen)
I 7a Central Chambers (occupied by an estate agent)
I 8 Spring Gardens (a florist) 6.32 The properties at Central Chambers also appear to have uses on upper floors – most likely storage and offices. The land ownership plan provided by LB Ealing does not identify who owns these properties (although they too may be in the control of Glenkerrin, given that their proposed Arcadia scheme included these buildings). 6.33 To create a new bus interchange as per Option 3c would require all this land and property to be assembled at a cost. Achieving land assembly here may however be challenging – as noted above the land falls within the proposed Glenkerrin scheme boundary and given the considerable costs (planning, design, etc) that Glenkerrin have already been likely to have incurred in promoting this proposal, it is unlikely that they would be willing to sell this land through private treaty - and especially as this land is likely to contribute considerably to the value of their originally proposed scheme through comprehensive redevelopment. It is unlikely that Option 3c could readily be integrated into any Glenkerrin scheme, without impacting considerably on its value, and the developer would probably therefore resist this. On that basis, it is probable that compulsory purchase would be needed to acquire this land, such an approach would be likely to increase land assembly costs and timescales for implementation. There may also be issues relating to ensuring access to the remaining buildings at Central Chambers is retained, as well as any possible impact on the Network Rail line, these items are again likely to have a cost attached to them. 6.34 Glenkerrin would probably argue that the land needed for Option 3c has significant development / marriage value, especially if linked to the wider Arcadia site to the south (i.e. a value which is potentially higher than just its existing use value as a car park). Even without the wider Arcadia proposal, Glenkerrin might still argue that in isolation the surface car park has good development potential (say, for residential purposes), albeit subject to planning.
6.35 There could also be concerns that a CPO might not be secured, assuming Glenkerrin were unwilling to treat. It may be fairly easy for affected parties (i.e. Glenkerrin) to argue that there are alternative - and just as effective solutions - to reconfigure the bus interchange without using this land (especially as Glenkerrin previously promoted an alternative bus interchange proposal on Haven Green east (see Option 4). 6.36 To fund Option 3c may be outside LB Ealing’s typical LIP allocation, even over a longer implementation period and as a result the cost of land acquisition for this
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
41 Interchange Study
option may need to be offset through enabling development. An initial review of Option 3c however suggests that this is unlikely to be possible as there is a need to re-provide any lost open space at Haven Green and allowing for this means there is probably little land left over which could be used for development purposes (and in a form which would be acceptable from a planning perspective). In any event, even if any land were available for development it is very doubtful if it would generate funds sufficient to cross fund the cost of the land acquisitions and other construction works required to deliver option 3c. As a result this option will require a subsidy both for construction and land assembly cost purposes.
6.37 Option 3c is likely to be a challenging option to deliver – both financially and perhaps more particularly in relation to assembling the land.
Costs & Programme 6.38 Table 6.4 gives a summary of the estimated cost to build Option 3c. A more detailed breakdown of the RIBA Stage D estimate is provided in Appendix B.
TABLE 6.3 OPTION 3C: COSTS SUMMARY
Item Cost
Interchange and area-wide streetscape Improvements £3,125,000
Signalisation of Haven Green east j/w Madeley Road £150,000
Main Contractors Preliminaries, OH & P & Design on Haven £725,000 Green work (@15%)
Property Acquisition** £1,000,000
Taxi / Bus Driver Facilities £500,000
Station Forecourt Parking Lease Buy-out* £200,000
Utilities* £1,000,000
Total £6,700,000
Risk & Contingency (@ 50%) £3,350,000
GRAND TOTAL £10,050,000
* = Estimate subject to detailed design and/or negotiation
** = Estimate provided as Property Costs Estimate (PCE) not requested by client team
6.39 As indicated in Table 6.4, as requested by the client team, a PCE has not been undertaken for Option 3c. The potentially significant additional costs required to assemble land and affected property, 7a – 10 Central Chambers, 8 Spring Bridge Road and Network Rail (BBC car park) land ,would need to be acquired and is likely to have an impact on the programme. There may also be significant costs attached to this option, especially given the development potential of the Network Rail land.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
42 Interchange Study
6.40 Understood to be no specific funding available from TfL at present. Cost could potentially be borne by S106 contributions from development in Ealing town centre area. This could however require significant (and viable) development to occur elsewhere to accumulate this sum. Nor would S106 contributions be forthcoming until, at the very earliest, construction commences on other development sites. As a result Option 3c is likely to require a package of S106 contributions from a range of sites (but this would be limited to a maximum of 5 sites under new statutory planning obligation tests). Alternatively, Community Infrastructure Levy could be used, subject to this policy being in place for the London Borough of Ealing. 6.41 Although the consultation and detailed design would be a relatively straight forward process an assumption has been made that the existing car park slab is of sufficient strength to use as the basis of the Option 3c bus station. Further work would be needed to structurally assess its suitability and as a result the programme for Option 3c is far less clear than that of Option 1a. 6.42 The possible need to Compulsory Purchase Order to assemble land, which might be resisted by key affected parties, potential track possession which would be required if any work on the slab was needed, and no clear funding package available could jeopardise delivery timescales. As a result it may be difficult to tie this option in with the proposed Crossrail works in 2013-16.
Appraisal Summary 6.43 Table 6.5 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.4 OPTION 3C: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & + Buildability - Affordability - Accessibility
Urban Realm - Bus Operation ++ Land Use Policy +
Open Space 0 Highway Network - Risk -
Environmental + Bus Station + Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability -
Key Issues 6.44 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 3c (more detailed commentary can be found in Appendix A).
Pros I Increased bus stop and stand capacity with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
43 Interchange Study
I Improved urban realm without net loss of open space on Haven Green;
I Reduced bus mileage around the network and without significant negative impact on the local traffic network;
Cons I Reduction in accessibility of some services as the LU/NR station can only be accessed by crossing from the bus station island and then Station Broadway whereas with existing arrangement requires an unopposed walk from the stops on Haven Green east.
I Buildability and affordability uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, furthermore Network Rail track possessions required during build (costs to be determined)
Variations 6.45 Option 3b - would provide a bus station on the south side of Haven Green and entirely within Haven Green. Feasibility Design (Drawing No. 22243601_103b) shows that this option would result in the irreplaceable net loss of 2,500m 2 of common land and impact on the trees on the southern side of Haven Green. As a result, and as agreed with the client team, this option has not been appraised in full.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
44 Interchange Study
Option 4
Bus stops and stands relocated to the east side of Haven Green 6.46 Option 4 is a development of the Glenkerrin planning application proposal with the bus stop and stands relocated from the diagonal (which will be closed) and repositioned on the (widened) eastern side of Haven Green. 6.47 The following proposals are shown in and should be read in conjunction with Drawing No. 22243601_104 (Figure 6.4).
FIGURE 6.4 OPTION 4: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
General Arrangement I Provision of an ‘island’ bus station including extensive widening along Haven Green East;
I Closure of Haven Green diagonal to replace the common land lost through the provision of the bus station;
I Signalisation of the Haven Green / Madeley Road junction to improve pedestrian crossing facilities in this area and manage conflicts with traffic (including heavy bus flows);
I Remodelling of the forecourt area;
I Provision of a new taxi ‘front portion’ outside the station forecourt to improve the taxi accessibility with slightly reduced capacity feeder rank along the western side of Haven Green east.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
45 Interchange Study
Public Realm I Loss of open space land and 10no. trees at the eastern edge of Haven Green due to new bus interchange location;
I The Cabmen’s shelter by the present taxi rank would be removed;
I Gain of open space land through closing of diagonal road through Haven Green and introduction of combined footpath and 2-way cycle path instead;
I New separated footpath and tree planting along realigned eastern edge of Haven Green;
I New paved traffic island with retained trees in new shrub planted and unbound gravel areas at the centre of the bus interchange location;
I Footpaths through Haven Green resurfaced with bound/bonded gravel;
I Carriageway on Haven Green / The Broadway and bus interchange area through Haven Green resurfaced with anti-skid treatment;
I New bus drivers facility building;
I Widened footpath and street tree planting on eastern side of Haven Green east / The Broadway;
I 63 (20 additional) stands capable of parking 126 (40 additional) cycles;
I Enhanced pedestrianised station forecourt with access road, low brick wall and car parking removed;
I Overall footways upgraded with Yorkstone paving; and
I Consistent treatment of street furniture and lighting appropriate for conservation area.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.48 Under Option 4 the buses would circulate in a clockwise direction. There would be sufficient space in the bus station for three 2-bus pick-up stops and six north facing stands within the bus station, while a pair of set-down stops, a 2-bus stand and a pair of pick-up stops (F and G) would be retained on the east side of Haven Green east and Station Broadway. 6.49 The 9 stands provided would be insufficient to cater for all terminating buses, full details of the Route by Route arrangements can be found in Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.50 As with 1a, Option 4 is based on providing the maximum kerbspace for stopping / standing buses; as a result removing the service road will have an impact on loading / Kiss-and-ride activity.
Costs & Programme 6.51 Table 6.6 gives a summary of the estimated cost to build Option 4. A more detailed breakdown of the RIBA Stage D estimate is provided in Appendix B.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
46 Interchange Study
6.52 As with Option 1a, and although slightly more complex, it would be possible to complete consultation, detailed design and a TfL: major scheme business case application before the end of FY 2011/12. Implementation could then be programmed for 2012/13 onwards and this could then tie in with the proposed Crossrail works (2013-16). 6.53 Part of the area this option would use for the improved interchange is currently included as part of the Crossrail works site area. Analysis undertaken by LB Ealing indicates that this area could be repositioned to provide a similar arrangement slightly further west on the green.
TABLE 6.5 OPTION 4: COSTS SUMMARY
Item Cost
Interchange and area-wide streetscape Improvements £3,475,000
Signalisation of Haven Green east j/w Madeley Road £200,000
Main Contractors Preliminaries, OH & P & Design on Haven £625,000 Green work (@15%)
Property Acquisition £nil
Taxi / Bus Driver Facilities £500,000
Station Forecourt Parking Lease Buy-out* £200,000
Utilities* £1,000,000
Total £6,000,000
Risk & Contingency (@ 25%) £1,500,000
GRAND TOTAL £7,500,000
* = Estimate subject to detailed design and/or negotiation
Appraisal Summary 6.54 Table 6.7 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
Key Issues 6.55 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 4:
Pros I Increased bus stop capacity with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Improved urban environment without net loss of open space on Haven Green; and
I Relatively straight forward build as all land lies under control of LB Ealing.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
47 Interchange Study
TABLE 6.6 OPTION 4: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & + Buildability + Affordability - Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation 0 Land Use Policy +
Open Space 0 Highway Network - Risk ++
Environmental + Bus Station 0 Property Loss ++ Amenity Capacity
Acceptability +
Cons I Reduction in bus stand capacity and therefore any significant increase in bus service frequency could only be met by changes to the bus network (i.e. extending and/or combining routes);
I Although bus movements would be similar to existing, there would be a small negative impact on local traffic network due to removal of the Haven Green diagonal and corresponding diversion of northbound taxis, service vehicles and drop-off traffic through the town centre;
I Negative visual impact due to scale of ‘bus station’ on the eastern side of Haven Green; and
I Scheme was previously rejected by LB Ealing Members following objections from local residents; scheme may require further modification before it is deemed acceptable.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
48 Interchange Study
Option 5
Bus station over District and Central Line tracks 6.56 Option 5 would provide a bus station above the District and Central line tracks with access via a new link to Haven Green East. The Haven Green Diagonal would also be closed and buses would head north on a two-way section of Haven Green east. Five variations of this scheme were previously included in the original Halcrow Report. 6.57 The following proposals are shown in and should be read in conjunction with Drawing Nos. 22243601_105, 22243601_bl_105, 22243601_ml_105, 22243601_pl_105 & 22243601_l_105.
FIGURE 6.5 OPTION 5: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
General Arrangement I Provision of a bus station over the district and central line tracks
I Access via a new link road which would require the demolition of (at least) Nos. 41-43 Haven Green
I Signalisation of the bus station access road to manage bus / traffic flows and pedestrian movements
I Northbound buses heading towards Castlebar Road would use a new northbound section of Haven Green East (includes minor amendments to the western kerbline)
I Closure of Haven Green diagonal
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
49 Interchange Study
I Interchange between the bus station and the London Underground and Network Rail platforms will be made via a new mezzanine ticket hall and subsequent connection to the new Crossrail link bridge (as shown in Drawing Nos. 22243601_ml_105, 22243601_pl_105 & 22243601_l_105)
I Interchange between the bus station and town centre to be made via a footway alongside the access road as it is unlikely that a path through the ‘station’ will be feasible due to the new Crossrail link bridge which will connect the LU and NR platforms
Public Realm I Gain of open space land through closing of diagonal road through Haven Green and introduction of combined footpath and two-way cycle path instead
I Loss of open space land and 1no. tree due to widening of Haven Green east;
I The Cabmen’s shelter by the present taxi rank would be removed;
I New footpath and tree planting along eastern edge of Haven Green;
I New street tree planting along Haven Green (road)/The Broadway adjacent to the station;
I Footpaths through Haven Green resurfaced with bound/bonded gravel;
I Carriageway on Haven Green / The Broadway and bus station approach through Haven Green raised to provide a low 50mm upstand kerb and resurfaced with anti skid treatment;
I 65 (22 additional) cycle stands capable of parking 130 (44 additional) cycles;
I Enhanced pedestrianised station forecourt with access road, low brick wall and car parking removed;
I Overall footways upgraded with Yorkstone paving; and
I Consistent treatment of street furniture and lighting appropriate for conservation area.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.58 Option 5 has a large passenger concourse with six 2-bus or 3-bus stops (two set- down, three pick-up) and stand space for 16 buses, which provides for considerable future-proofing. In both options northbound buses would be able to turn right from the bus station into Haven Green east.
6.59 Due to the additional circulatory distance required to serve the Option 5 bus station, there would be a considerable increase in mileage for some routes. Full details of this and the stopping and standing arrangements for Option 5 can be found in the Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.60 As shown in the Option 5 design, the removal of Stop C (o/s Nos. 41-49 Haven Green east) affords the opportunity to provide new loading and/or Kiss-and-ride facilities in its place.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
50 Interchange Study
Buildability Assessment
Introduction 6.61 Due to the more complex nature of this option, we have discussed the scheme in greater detail with both TfL (Interchange and London Underground) and Network Rail / Crossrail. Summary notes on the operation (during and post-construction), construction, legal and planning issues, and feasibility of over-site development are provided below. TfL’s observations are based on the 22243601_xx_105 series drawings issued on 15 April 2010. 6.62 The drawings are indicative of proposals for a bus station above the District line platforms at Ealing Broadway station. The observations are principally from a rail operations and engineering standpoint. Without a detailed assessment being possible the observations are for guidance only but reference the concerns of TfL/LU with regard to the operational and constructional viability of the scheme. The commentary does not include observations on the potential operability from TfL: London Buses. (It should be noted that TfL have no budget to further a scheme of this nature or any other related project at this station with the exception of Crossrail.)
FIGURE 6.6 OPTION 5: SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION
Operations: During Construction 6.63 The re-alignment of the Central line platform 6 would involve running the District Line from platforms 8 and 9 to allow for safe working but would require the Central Line service to operate from platform 5 only which would severely reduce the service from Ealing Broadway to White City – possibly to the point where this would be unacceptable to London Underground or the severity of works on platform 6 would make it unsafe to use platform 5 at all meaning no Central line U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
51 Interchange Study
service. The extent of the impact on London Underground services is dependent on the construction methodology but this could be up to two years if implemented making use of a weekend-only closure programme. 6.64 If possible it would make sense whilst platform 6 is closed, to open up the platforms and carry out any necessary strengthening works capable of carrying a piling rig prior to installing (a presumed) pile group foundation with pile cap ready to accept steel columns to support the new bus station (see the section below which discusses construction in greater detail). The steel columns could be bought in on engineering trains (due to the limitations of storage space) once the pile groups are in place and erected using, where possible a train-mounted crane, in order to minimize disruption to the station, this work would need to be carried out at weekends. It is assumed that the erection of steelwork at night would be very noisy and therefore unacceptable to the local residents and Local Authority. 6.65 It is also assumed that the installation of the piles, caps and erection and of the platform/steel columns for the District line would take place at weekends, 48 hour possessions, with possibly work on all platforms 5/6, 7/8, 9 and embankment in parallel. Discussions/agreement will probably be required with NR regarding works at the east end of the Central line platforms being in close proximity to the NR platform 4 and the adjacent NR track which may have; programme and cost implications. 6.66 To accommodate the weekend working and potentially the Central line platform closure, a bus service would have to be provided from the nearest point where:
I Trains can reverse; and
I Buses can park to accept and unload passengers 6.67 The bus services will need to cater for the usual passenger movements at a weekend and be accompanied by a high profile communications campaign advising of the closure including close liaison with the TOC regarding interchange/transfer of passengers. The buses would have to pull up outside the station entrance which is already crowded, and as a result some temporary relocation of the existing bus services may be needed (close liaison with TfL: London Buses and LB Ealing would be required).
Operations: Post-construction 6.68 The column arrangement would cause considerable congestion and dynamic modelling (such as Legion) would need to be used to prove that this meets LU station planning standards. 6.69 It would be usual to install ticket machines in the ticket office and these have a space implication. 6.70 The mezzanine deck would be required to take flow both from platform level and bus station level leading to potential queuing. Once again dynamic modelling of the mezzanine to ensure the congestion would not be beyond acceptable bounds would need to be undertaken. 6.71 The construction of the bus station would turn the LU station into a Section 12 station requiring much greater fire protection, CCTV and PA coverage. Additional
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
52 Interchange Study
LU staffing would be required to main the auxiliary ticket hall and patrol the platforms now width-restricted by the structural columns. LU Station Planning Standards require 3.0m clear distance from the edge of the platform to the nearest structure, feasibility design suggests this is not achievable on platform 9 and would be unacceptable (though a concession could be requested if no other option was available). 6.72 There is an assumption that the mezzanine deck would tie in with the proposed Crossrail over-bridge however an initial TfL assessment suggests that this is unlikely to work thus requiring a second lift to platform level which by observation would always be too close to a platform edge. This requires a significant amount of work to be undertaken. Passengers would be disadvantaged without access to the Crossrail over-bridge.
Construction 6.73 As discussed previously the station has poor access and storage areas. Even if the planning and legal issues are overcome, (see below) it would appear difficult to form the structure in concrete therefore with the need for off-site fabrication a steel structure is suggested. 6.74 The impact of opening up all the platforms to install the piles and pile caps could be to require the total rebuild of the platforms as a result of the volume of work required on each platform. A full geotechnical survey would be required to ensure that the ground was suitable for carrying the load of the bus station (should the area above the bus station be developed the foundations for the development would be substantially larger and should be placed at the same time otherwise the deck and it’s foundations would prevent construction of additional foundations for any development. 6.75 In re-aligning platform 6, platform 5/6 would need to be rebuilt (see notes on operations during construction) and in re-aligning the platform the following would need to be considered:
I Design and movement of signalling equipment
I Disconnection and re-connection of traction supplies
I Design and re-installation of buffer stops
I Removal of existing track, sleepers and ballast
I Design and installation of new track sleepers and ballast
I Trial running 6.76 LU standards require that all columns be 4.5m away from the platform edge unless the potential for train impact is taken into account – this will require significantly heavier/stronger steelwork. 6.77 New platforms are expected to be constructed 3m longer (at each end) than anticipated train lengths.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
53 Interchange Study
6.78 Due to the limitations of space it is assumed that a train mounted crane could assist in placing the steelwork, these cranes for obvious reasons have limitations and must be assessed against the safe load/working criteria. 6.79 ‘Section 12’ stations require significant CCTV, PA, Fire Protection systems to be installed. It is likely that the station offices will need to be expanded to incorporate the hardware and monitors to support the S12 systems. 6.80 On the basis that the new gating will be managed by LU, a new CER room to house the gate hardware/software will be required. 6.81 The increase in electrical equipment will probably require an increased power supply to the station which will need to be resolved. 6.82 TfL/LU have concerns with regard to the collection and disposal of rainwater on the bus deck which has the potential to flood the track below. Foul drainage on the LU rail station is limited and below existing ground level. The new design for the bus station would need to gain access to LA drainage. 6.83 It would appear that the lift from the mezzanine deck to the bus station deck is supported by a single column, the lift construction and operation would make this arrangement difficult to achieve.
6.84 Once the columns to the bus deck are in place it may be possible to use these to support a crash deck (erected nights/weekends) above which the construction of the bus station could be carried out 24/7 however the crash deck would prevent use of the train mounted cranes and it is not clear how materials would be stored and structure erected from above the crash deck. To protect the operational railway the crash deck would be substantial. 6.85 The installation of the mezzanine deck would need to be undertaken during engineering hours and/or weekend possessions. The dismantling of the crash deck on completion would need to be treated the same way.
Legal and Planning 6.86 As the bus station is not “operational railway” it is assumed that permitted development does not apply and planning permission would need to be sought.
6.87 Further comments may be sought from TfL: London Buses - Network Operations and Infrastructure on the operation of the bus station however the following are general observations:
I The new entrance from Haven Green requires as a minimum property Nos. 41- 43 Haven Green. These properties are part of the block numbered 41 – 48 forming part of the original District line ticket hall. Demolition of Nos. 41-43 may not be possible in isolation and the whole structure may need to be acquired and made safe prior to any works. The properties have been let on a long lease (125 years) and may be expensive to obtain.
I Given the number of buses and pedestrians expected to use the bus station the squash club would be blighted by the removal of their parking. The viability of using the squash club both during and post completion of the works should be considered with the associated cost and risk.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
54 Interchange Study
I It is potentially possible that a TWA order would need to be obtained to overcome legal difficulties resulting in additional design and legal costs plus programme delay.
Property Impacts 6.88 Option 5 would have a direct impact on the following properties and land interests:
I 41 - 43 Haven Green (occupied by Boots the Chemist and Kerr Employment Agency).
I Ealing Broadway Station (space above the underground lines).
I Property to the rear of 41 – 43 Haven Green (used as a car park at ground floor level with uses staked above, potentially office space).
I Land to the north of 41 Haven Green (part of an access route to around 15 properties to the north. This access route may also be under two separate ownerships). 6.89 Of all these interests, the key landowner is TfL (who own the underground lines and therefore the air rights above). It is however apparent from the list of land interests above that a considerable number of other properties would need to be assembled to facilitate this option - especially to create the access route off Haven Green (other properties will also be indirectly affected – see the list below). In view of this, while these interests might be assembled through private treaty, there is a real prospect that compulsory purchase would be needed. Importantly, arguably those interests who are needed to forge the bus route off Haven Green in Option 5 occupy a strategic position. Their location could potentially create a ransom strip situation. It should also be noted however that if Option 5 proposes a bus station only (i.e. no significant enabling development), then it is very unlikely that this proposal any additional development profit attached to it, thus, a ransom strip would also have no additional value attached to it. 6.90 In addition to the land interests directly affected, a number of others interests are likely to be indirectly affected; this would however need to be clarified by detailed feasibility and design work. Those interests potentially affected are:
I Ealing Squash Courts
I Properties served by the current access/service route off Haven Green (principally to numbers 31 – 40 Haven Green).
I 44 Haven Green
I Ealing Broadway mainline station (owned by Network Rail) 6.91 Overall, the costs associated with bringing forward this proposal can be described under several broad headings:
I Land acquisition costs – relating to assembling the required properties directly affected by development. The assumption is that as the works to deliver the new bus station deck would be undertaken by TfL on TfL land, therefore there would be no acquisition costs associated with the air rights needed here. There
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
55 Interchange Study
are also several retail kiosks on the tube line platform, whose businesses might be affected by any development above. Again, this impact would need to be tested through detailed design work.
I Disturbance costs - costs associated with land interests indirectly affected by development. This relates to varying access/service rights, and possibly disturbance costs associated with adjacent neighbouring properties affected by development, as described above.
Case-specific Comments I Retail properties to the north of Ealing Squash Courts, fronting Haven Green. It is identified that a number of retail properties may benefit from a right of access to the rear of their properties from the road leading to Ealing Squash Courts. In this estimate it is assumed that the access to these properties, through appropriate design and build considerations, is maintained and the scheme does not give rise to a claim by the property owners or occupiers.
I Ealing Squash Courts. As the drawings indicate that part of the site will be required for the scheme we have assumed that the business will no longer be able to operate from this location. Given the nature of the property it is envisaged that relocation is unlikely and an assessment has been made on an extinguishment basis. Whilst we have not had sight of the accounts for the business, consideration has been given to the profitability of similar operations. Such operations that trade nationally and publish their accounts have been considered and figures adjusted accordingly. It is also noted that the property has the benefit of a planning consent to reconfigure and extend the facilities, only part of this has been undertaken at the time of assessment and the PCE should be reviewed in the event these works are fully completed.
I Kerr Recruitment. The recruitment agency enjoy shop frontage of 41 to 42 Haven Green. However, through signage and logos displayed in first floor windows it appears they occupy much of the space above 43 to 47 Haven Green also. Information on the first floor of these buildings is limited on the Valuation Office website and we have made appropriate assumptions where necessary.
Conclusion 6.92 The Property Cost Estimate has been undertaken using the information currently available, as set out in this report, the estimated for property costs, as at 8 April 2010 are as follows:
I Option 5(i) - 41 to 43 Haven Green plus Squash Courts £2,612,000
I Option 5(ii) - 41 to 49 Haven Green plus Squash Courts £3,525,000 6.93 The entitlement to compensation may be reduced by reaching agreement with affected parties which includes an undertaking to provide space within the completed development. The PCE ignores the effects of an agreement of this type.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
56 Interchange Study
Costs Summary 6.94 Table 6.8 gives a summary of the estimated cost to build Option 5 under Normal and Engineering Hours (a more detailed breakdown of the RIBA Stage D estimate is provided in Appendix B).
TABLE 6.7 OPTION 5: COSTS SUMMARY
Item Cost
Norm Hours Eng Hours
Slab and Interchange Construction (inc Main £16,000,000 £40,500,000 Contractors Preliminaries, OH & P & Design)
Area-wide Improvements (inc Main Contractors £4,475,000 £4,475,000 Preliminaries, OH & P & Design on Haven Green work @15%)
Property Acquisition: Option 5(ii) £3,525,000 £3,525,000
Station Forecourt Parking Lease Buy-out* £200,000 £200,000
Utilities* £1,000,000 £1,000,000
Total £25,200,000 £49,700,000
Risk & Contingency (@ 50%) £12,600,000 £24,850,000
GRAND TOTAL £37,800,000 £74,550,000
* = Estimate subject to detailed design and/or negotiation
Viability Assessment 6.95 Introduction - As this option is likely to be of relatively high cost and therefore undeliverable through Local Implementation Plan (LIP), TfL-backed or S106 funding, it is likely that the implementation of this option would need to be funded by over site development. To better understand the likely scale and massing required for such a scenario, CB Richard Ellis have undertaken a viability assessment, a summary of which is provided below. 6.96 As part of the option evaluation process CB Richard Ellis has undertaken financial appraisals of Option 5: creation of new bus station above the District and Central lines with a further development deck proposed above and with access to the deck is forged off Haven Green east. The appraisals have been prepared to test the amount of development that might be needed to cross-fund a deck above the station which could accommodate a new bus station and associated facilities, allowing for a developers profit and having due regard to the known characteristics of the site and the inherent risk involved in its development.
6.97 It is important to note that no indicative development scheme has been prepared. The approach taken is simply to test in broad terms the amount of floorspace that
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
57 Interchange Study
might be required to create a viable development above the underground tracks. Scheme design testing would be needed to assess whether the development area (i.e. the deck) could satisfactorily accommodate the floorspace identified through the high level appraisals. 6.98 The development appraisals are informed by construction cost estimates provided by Franklin and Andrews and assumptions on property values are drawn from CB Richard Ellis’ property market analysis, and combined with extensive development market experience and knowledge. The viability testing is at today’s (2010) costs and prices. The appraisals are also prepared on the basis that no external funding is available. 6.99 Development Options - Due to the very significant complexities associated with developing above a live rail and/or underground (and bus) station Franklin & Andrews have provided two differing cost scenarios to reflect alternative construction methods: 6.100 Scenario A – Normal Hours – in this instance it is assumed that development can occur unimpeded and without unduly affecting station related activities below. In practice however, this may well be a challenging scenario, if for example a temporary station needs to be provided to avoid any unacceptable disruption from construction activity occurring above, this would have a very significant additional cost implication. 6.101 Scenario B – Engineering Hours – in this case it is assumed that an additional crash deck is provided to ensure that construction activity above does not unduly affect the operation of the station below. This construction method has significantly higher costs attached to it when compared with ‘Scenario A’. 6.102 Based on these scenarios a number of options are tested with development above the train/bus station adopting:
I Scenario A Costs (Normal Hours); and
I Scenario B Costs (Engineering Hours). 6.103 From a high level review of Ealing’s property market and known site characteristics, development options were tested for two key uses – offices and residential. These are considered to be the most suitable uses. It is acknowledged that other uses might contribute to scheme mix, albeit their inclusion is likely to be a relatively small element compared to the main office and residential components. If design proposals were to progress for this site then the inclusion of other uses should be tested. 6.104 From early emerging financial outputs for an office led proposal for the site, it was immediately apparent that such a scheme was extremely unlikely to be deliverable. Initial testing under Cost Scenario A (the lower construction cost) suggested that even allowing for 90 floors of development (or around 3.5m – 4m sq ft of space) an unacceptably low profit margin would be generated. Moreover, the height and scale of such a proposal would be extremely unlikely to be acceptable in planning terms. The office development option was therefore discounted. Subsequently, the development appraisals focus only on residential led
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
58 Interchange Study
development. The following key assumptions and caveats underlying these development appraisals were made to inform the appraisal on:
I Plot ratio/scope for development
I Net saleable areas
I Development contingency
I Professional fees
I S106 contributions
I Marketing and disposal fees
I Property acquisition costs
I Planning costs
I Sales rates
I Developers’ Profit
I Sales values 6.105 Results - The results of our financial appraisal are described in terms of the amount of units delivered, the floorspace and number of floors, based on the high level assumptions. Viability is examined at two profit levels: 15% and 20% profit on cost.
TABLE 6.8 OPTION 5: PROFIT-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT SCALE
Option 5 Profit on Cost Cost Scenario A Cost Scenario B
15% 16 floors 40 floors 666,473 sq ft 1,663,685 sq ft 816 units 2,560 units
20% Not deliverable Not deliverable
6.106 The above results must also be considered in light of a number of important caveats. The appraisals do not make an allowance for contamination, ground conditions or noise and vibration measures potentially needed to mitigate against the station activity below. There are also other specific items which could have very significant cost implications, as follows:
I Development could result in the train station becoming an enclosed facility. It is understood that were this the case, then further works could be required to meet statutory requirements so as to ensure the safe movement of passengers, especially in an emergency. This may well include emergency access and egress routes, additional lifts and other specific – and potentially expensive - requirements.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
59 Interchange Study
I If more direct passenger connections to the Crossrail and Ealing Broadway Crossrail, Rail and Tube Station are required this would incur additional costs. Any design of development above would also need to integrate with the forthcoming Crossrail proposals.
I The development is likely to impinge on adjacent Network Rail land. Oversailing cranes, for example, could affect Network Rail’s air rights. This could incur two additional costs: firstly, costs associated with possession rights needed to facilitate safe development, and secondly, Network Rail could view use of their air rights as having a value, and possibly a ransom position. In addition, the scale of the supporting structure and columns for the deck could encroach on Network Rail’s land.
I If the accommodation works could not be contained on the deck above the train station, then additional land would need to be found for this purpose.
I The height of the buildings could trigger rights to light claims. 6.107 Another significant factor relates to the design and feasibility of building above the train station. Without detailed design work it is not possible to conclude whether the residential development could be attractively configured (i.e. to allow dual aspect units, for example). Poor quality design might depress sales values and, of course, make the proposition far less attractive to developers.
6.108 With particular reference to the lower costs assumed under Scenario A, if additional temporary works were needed to ensure the tube (and possibly train) station were not unduly affected, then depending on the scope of additional works needed, costs could rise considerably (this may include Central Line track realignment). A worst case scenario might be the provision of a temporary station. From a similar project elsewhere, we are aware that relocating a train station only a short distance down the line was estimated to cost in excess of £20m. 6.109 In essence – and as would be expected – there are very considerable cost uncertainties that could only be measured through detailed design work and negotiations with other parties. The key point here is that costs are far more likely to rise than fall. 6.110 Finally, and particularly for Cost Scenario B, an extremely aggressive (and unsustainable) sales rate is assumed. Lower sales rates would have a very significant negative impact on the appraisal outputs and would make the proposal unviable. 6.111 Viability Assessment Conclusions - Our conclusions are that while there are some cost uncertainties regarding the option to develop above the train station, we consider that:
I Under Cost Scenario A – Normal Hours – there is the possibility of additional development costs arising. Were this the case, then further development (and therefore height) would be needed to cross fund this. Nor does it appear possible to achieve a 20% profit margin under a 15% profit on cost option – a more likely level of return a developer would seek. We are therefore of the opinion that the option to build a bus station with development above at Ealing Broadway station is very unlikely to be a deliverable option.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
60 Interchange Study
I Under Cost Scenario B – Engineering Hours – we are strongly of the opinion that this would not be a deliverable scheme. The only way to create a viable proposal is to assume an unsustainable residential sales rate (running the appraisals at more moderate sales rates makes the scheme unviable for all options adopting Cost Scenario B). Even allowing for this very aggressive sales rate, the height of any development is unlikely to be unacceptable in planning terms. In light of this, it is also extremely doubtful that a developer would be willing to take such a significant financial risk. 6.112 One of the key reasons for the development options not proving to be more viable is the very high finance costs which accrue as a result of the upfront delivery of significant infrastructure and development of the residential block.
Over-Station Development: Technical Issues 6.113 There is no obvious site for materials to be stored. There is no obvious site for a tower crane to be erected which would be necessary to offer a reasonably practical way of erecting a development. 6.114 Access to the new development would, by its nature, need to be from the bus station deck, causing space constraints or from a higher level. It is not obvious how this can be achieved. The Development will presumably need emergency exits; there is no obvious site for these. Emergency exit onto the rail station is not acceptable. 6.115 The new development would also need planning permission and would, being directly south of Madeley Road, be expected to draw strong objection from those people/houses affected by the development. 6.116 It is unclear how the Development would be serviced and how in an emergency fire tenders or ambulances would easily get to the Development.
6.117 TfL are again concerned about the impact of both surface water and foul drainage, the expected volumes of these could not be contained within the station demise and alternative arrangements would have to be found. 6.118 Given the height of any development would be substantial in order to pay for itself and construction of the new bus deck significant interface with both TfL/LU and NR on construction and safety matters would need to be resolved. These negotiations could involve significant time and cost implications. 6.119 Should the proposal be to implement a Development post the construction of the bus deck further costs involved with the disruption of station and train operations both for LU and NR would need to be investigated and agreed. 6.120 Construction of the Development post the implementation of the bus station, as noted previously, would not easily be able to use train mounted cranes, even in limited capacity. Engineers trains for delivery of materials and removal of waste would also be compromised. It is not clear how materials would be stored and structure erected from above the crash deck. Protection of the operational railway and passengers may lead to reduced working times during erection of the main structural supports and superstructure.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
61 Interchange Study
Programme 6.121 There are essentially three construction elements associated with Option 5:
I Bus Station;
I Over site development; and
I Crossrail Station Improvement Works. 6.122 For the bus station alone, the Option 5 programme shares some similarities with Option 3c, however, although there is significant land assembly required for affected property (Nos. 41-49 Haven and the squash club), the majority of land is owned by Transport for London, so if backing was forthcoming this would reduce impact on programme on costs. 6.123 If following consultation and detailed design, which could reasonably be expected to take until 2012/13 at the earliest, the over site development proved to be viable, while it is possible that the Crossrail proposals would not be affected by the bus station works (on the face of it they take place on different plots of land), were this bus station option thought to be the best solution it would seem a sensible approach to integrate these transport nodes to maximise the benefits. 6.124 However given that the Crossrail station works are currently at GRIP: Stage 3 (Option Close Out) and therefore without the ability (or funding) to modify the current designs it would be a significant challenge to integrate the Option 5 proposals with the Crossrail station redevelopment works (which are to be confirmed but currently programmed for 2013–16). 6.125 The possible need to Compulsory Purchase Order to assemble land, which might be resisted by affected parties, track possession, and no clear funding package available could jeopardise delivery timescales. As a result it may be difficult to tie this option in with the proposed Crossrail works in 2013-16.
Appraisal Summary 6.126 Table 6.10 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.9 OPTION 5: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & 0 Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network 0 Risk --
Environmental + Bus Station ++ Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
62 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.127 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 5.
Pros I Increased bus stop (+1 bus) and stand (+6 buses) capacity with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Improved interchange for users wishing to transfer from buses to other bus services or rail and underground services; and
I Improved urban environment and potential increase in net open space on Haven Green.
Cons I Difficult build due to restrictions on access and potential build over a live station;
I Although bus movements would be similar to those under the existing arrangement, there would be a significant increase in bus mileage due to the extra distance travelled to access the bus station;
I Some negative impact on local traffic network due to removal of the Haven green diagonal and corresponding diversion of northbound taxis, service vehicles and drop-off traffic through the town centre;
I Negative impact on residents backing onto the proposed bus station;
I Very high cost to develop designs and then build
I Considerable uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, potential London Underground and Network Rail track possessions required during build and also poor likelihood of finding a champion to fund such a scheme.
Variations 6.128 Haven Green diagonal to remain open - Rather than have northbound bus services leave the bus station and turn right it would be possible for them to continue to use the diagonal instead. This is unlikely to lead to any significant variation in the feasibility, deliverability or user experience of this option.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
63 Interchange Study
Option 7
Bus station over District and Central Line tracks plus bus exit to The Mall 6.129 Option 7 is broadly similar to Option 5 but sees the addition of a new southbound, exit-only link from the bus station onto The Mall.
General Arrangement & Public Realm 6.130 As shown in Drawing No. 22243601_107 (and in Figure 6.7) the proposals for Option 7 are broadly the same as those considered in Option 5 but with the addition of:
I Provision of an exit only link (probably requiring the demolition of No. 21 The Mall) for some bus services (southbound routes 65, E2, E8, E10) at the eastern end of the bus station and onto The Mall; and
I A new signalised junction to manage bus movements and pedestrian conflicts at the new exit link’s intersection with The Mall.
FIGURE 6.7 OPTION 7: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.131 Option 7 is very similar to Option 5 but the provision of the exit reduces the length of Stand X1, as a result the total stand space for 15 buses. The central island is served by six stops (two set-down, three pick-up) and can accommodate a maximum of 13 buses. 6.132 As with Option 5 there would be a considerable increase in mileage for some routes. Full details of this and the stopping and standing arrangements for Option 7 can be found in the Technical Note.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
64 Interchange Study
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.133 As shown in the Option 7 design, the removal of Stop C (o/s Nos. 41-49 Haven Green east) affords the opportunity to provide new loading and/or Kiss-and-ride facilities in its place.
Property Impacts 6.134 As expected Option 7 is a similar in this respect to the Option 5; the deck would be positioned above the District lines but the key difference is the additional requirement for an exit-only route from the bus station deck to The Mall, immediately to the east of 21 The Mall (an office block). The interests required to facilitate this route would rest potentially in two key ownerships (subject to clarification through legal/Land Registry searches). These affected interests would however be in addition to those outlined above under Option 5. This proposal would increase scheme costs; both construction and land assembly. A number of points also need to be raised in this respect:
I That - similar to Option 5 - a ransom strip position could occur (subject to there being any development profit in the proposed scheme) for the benefit of either the owners of 21 The Mall or Network Rail; and
I As well as increased construction costs associated with the additional exit route there would be technical issues related to delivering a connection from the new elevated bus station deck across the Network Rail ownership to link with The Mall. This proposition may well have associated possession costs related to bridging over the railway lines – these may be very considerable, given the high frequency of trains operating on this line.
Case Specific Comments I Carmelita House (21 The Mall). The costs provided indicate a ´worst case scenario´ in that the whole building is acquired and the occupier is relocated. Having visited the site we have identified it may be possible, through more detailed design, for the building to remain and car parking area taken as part of the scheme. Should a more detailed design be provided in due course the PCE should be revised.
Conclusion 6.135 The Property Cost Estimate has been undertaken using the information currently available and the estimated for property costs, as at 8 April 2010 are as follows:
I Option 7 – as per 5A (ii) plus 21 The Mall £9,165,000 6.136 As previously discussed, the entitlement to compensation may be reduced by reaching agreement with affected parties which includes an undertaking to provide space within the completed development (the PCE ignores the effects of an agreement of this type).
Costs and Programme 6.137 Table 6.11 gives a summary of the estimated cost to build Option 7 under Normal and also Engineering Hours. A detailed breakdown of the RIBA Stage D estimate is provided in Appendix B.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
65 Interchange Study
6.138 The programme for Option 7 is unlikely to change significantly when compared with Option 5.
TABLE 6.10 OPTION 7: COSTS SUMMARY
Item Cost
Norm Hours Eng Hours
Slab and Interchange Construction (inc Main £16,000,000 £40,500,000 Contractors Preliminaries, OH & P & Design)
Exit-only Link to The Mall £325,000 £325,000
Area-wide Improvements (inc Main Contractors £5,010,000 £5,010,000 Preliminaries, OH & P & Design on Haven Green work @15%)
Property Acquisition £9,165,000 £9,165,000
Station Forecourt Parking Lease Buy-out* £200,000 £200,000
Utilities* £1,000,000 £1,000,000
Total £31,700,000 £56,200,000
Risk & Contingency (@ 50%) £15,850,000 £28,100,000
GRAND TOTAL £47,550,000 £84,300,000
Appraisal Summary 6.139 Table 6.12 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.11 OPTION 7: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & 0 Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network - Risk --
Environmental + Bus Station ++ Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
66 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.140 The commentary on operation, construction, legal / planning issues and feasibility of over site development provided by TfL, as well as the Viability Assessment carried out by CB Richard Ellis also apply to Option 7. The impact of providing an additional exit-only link between the bus station and The Mall is discussed within the appraisal summary below.
Pros I Increased bus stop (+1 bus) and stand (+5 buses) capacity with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Improved interchange for users wishing to transfer from buses to other bus services or rail and underground services; and
I Improved urban environment and potential increase in net open space on Haven Green.
Cons I Extremely difficult build due to restrictions on access and potential build over a live station;
I Although bus movements would be similar to those under the existing arrangement, there would be a significant increase in bus mileage due to the extra distance travelled to access the bus station;
I Negative impact on local traffic network due to removal of the Haven green diagonal and corresponding diversion of northbound taxis, service vehicles and drop-off traffic through the town centre;
I Further negative impact on traffic through the provision of a new signalised junction on The Mall;
I Negative impact on residents backing onto the proposed bus station;
I Very high cost to develop designs and build; and
I Considerable uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, potential London Underground and Network Rail track possessions required during build and also poor likelihood of finding a champion to fund such a scheme.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
67 Interchange Study
Option 12
Creation of a ‘Bus Mall’ along Haven Green East and Station Broadway 6.141 Option 12 was proposed by Urban Studio (Tribal Group) as part of their Ealing Broadway Station Area and Interchange - Assessment of Improvement and Development Options Study (February 2010). Option 12 includes the creation of a two-way bus (or public transport) ‘mall’ along Haven Green East and Station Broadway with the diagonal closed and general traffic diverted to use Spring Bridge Road, which will need to be widened including the bridge over the national rail lines.
General Arrangement 6.142 The following proposals are shown in Drawing Nos. 22243601_112 and Figure 6.8:
I Conversion of haven Green East and Station Broadway to two-way operation for buses, taxis and cycles only
I Provision of new northbound bus stops on Haven Green East
I Modification of the Station Broadway / The Mall / The Broadway junction to permit and accommodate northbound buses, taxis and cycles (only) from The Mall / The Broadway
I General traffic would be diverted to use Spring Bridge Road / Haven Green West which would need significant carriageway and bridge widening
I Modification of the Spring Bridge Road / The Broadway / High Street junction to accommodate the additional flow of exiting vehicles from Spring Bridge Road
FIGURE 6.8 OPTION 12: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
68 Interchange Study
I Closure of the Haven Green Diagonal
I Modification of the Castlebar Road / Haven Green junction to allow the significantly revised traffic flows and movements
I Remodelling of the forecourt area
Public Realm 6.143 Due the similarities of the resultant carriageway layout around Haven Green associated with this option, the treatment of the area would effectively be the same as that applied to Option 5.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.144 Option 12 can only accommodate up to 15 buses at the kerbside (not designated as stopping or standing) compared with 22 under the existing arrangement). Further detail on the stopping and standing arrangements for this option can be found in the Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.145 Due to its designation as a public transport mall, Haven Green east will be restricted to access only which will effectively rule out and kiss-and-ride. As this option would see a reduction in total available kerbspace for buses the design does not include any loading facilities (as existing situation) but is less than ideal.
Costs & Programme 6.146 Due to the significant negative impact on the local traffic network, bus operation, environmental amenity, high level of risk associated with acceptability in terms of affordability and property acquisition, this option has not be costed or programmed in detail. It is however likely to take longer to construct and be more costly than Options 1a, 3c and 4. There are also no direct development opportunities to offset the high costs of this Option.
Appraisal Summary 6.147 Table 6.13 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.12 OPTION 12: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & 0 Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network - Risk --
Environmental -- Bus Station ++ Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
69 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.148 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 12.
Pros I Reduced bus mileage for services from the south as they would no longer have to use circuitous route around Haven Green;
I Improved interchange for users wishing to transfer from buses to other bus services or rail and underground services with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Potential increase in net open space on Haven Green;
Cons I Reduction in bus stop (x) and stand capacity (y) and therefore to reduce impact on stop / stand stress under existing service levels alone could only be met by changes to the bus network (i.e. extending and/or combining routes);
I Significant carriageway widening required on Spring Bridge Road to accommodate two-way general and bus traffic and would lead to loss of trees on the western side of Haven Green;
I Rail bridge rebuild and carriageway widening would have a severe impact on the local traffic network; limited number of alternative north–south routes (particularly for buses and other large vehicles) would exacerbate problems further;
I Rail bridge rebuild would also require greater clearance under latest and more onerous regulations with potential issues over levels, access to the Spring Bridge Road car park and also associated costs (including loss of revenue during build programme);
I Major negative impact on local traffic network due to introduction of two-way traffic on Spring Bridge Road, removal of the Haven Green diagonal and closure of Station Broadway;
I The addition of southbound traffic movements within the Spring Bridge Road junction with The Broadway would lead to unacceptable delays and queues for all traffic;
I Increased bus mileage for terminating services from the north as they would be forced to use a circuitous route through the town centre to resume service;
I High design and build costs due to carriageway widening and bridge rebuild; and
I High levels of uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, Network Rail track possessions required during build, likely opposition from TfL (and other key stakeholders) and potential lack of champion to fund such a scheme.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
70 Interchange Study
Option 13
Broadway closed (pedestrians and cycles only) plus Option 7 6.149 Option 13 is based on the potential desire to close Station Broadway (between the Haven Green diagonal and The Mall) so that it is only available for and maximises the benefit to pedestrians and cyclists. It includes the provision of a bus station over the LU tracks as per Option 7, closure of the diagonal, provision of a turning circle for access and taxis opposite the forecourt and requires all traffic to again use a widened two-way link on Spring Bridge Road.
General Arrangement 6.150 The general arrangement and public realm proposals for Option 13 are the same as those considered in Option 7 but (as shown in Drawing No. 22243601_113) with the addition of:
I Pedestrianisation of Station Broadway (also allowing cyclists to use the link)
I Removal of the Station Broadway / The Mall / The Broadway junction and replacement with a pelican crossing (not shown)
I General traffic would be diverted to use Spring Bridge Road / Haven Green West which would need significant carriageway and bridge widening
I Modification of the Spring Bridge Road / The Broadway / High Street junction to accommodate the additional flow of exiting vehicles from Spring Bridge Road
I Modification of the Castlebar Road / Haven Green junction to allow the significantly revised traffic flows and movements
FIGURE 6.9 OPTION 13: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
71 Interchange Study
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.151 The arrangements for Option 13 are the same as those detailed under Option 7.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.152 The removal of all stop along Haven Green east would allow the introduction of improved loading and/or Kiss-and-ride facilities as shown in the design drawings.
Costs & Programme 6.153 Due to the unworkable negative impact on the local traffic network, bus operations, environmental amenity, high level of risk associated with acceptability in terms of affordability and property acquisition, this option has not be costed or programmed in detail. It is however likely to take longer to construct and be more costly than Option 7 (£47.5m - £84.3m).
Appraisal Summary 6.154 Table 6.14 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.13 OPTION 13: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & 0 Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network - Risk --
Environmental -- Bus Station ++ Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
Key Issues 6.155 The commentary on operation, construction, legal / planning issues and feasibility of over site development provided by TfL, as well as the Viability Assessment carried out by CB Richard Ellis also apply to Option 13. The impact of providing an additional exit-only link between the bus station and The Mall is discussed below. The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 13.
Pros I Increased bus stop (+1 bus) and stand (+5 buses) capacity with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Improved interchange for users wishing to transfer from buses to other bus services or rail and underground services;
I Improved urban environment through closure and pedestrianisation of Station Broadway;
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
72 Interchange Study
I Potential increase in net open space on Haven Green;
Cons I As per Option 7, the bus station would be extremely difficult to build due to restrictions on access and potential build over a live station;
I Negative impact on residents backing onto the proposed bus station;
I Significant carriageway widening required on Spring Bridge Road to accommodate two-way general and bus traffic and would lead to loss of trees on the western side of Haven Green;
I Rail bridge rebuild and carriageway widening would have a severe impact on the local traffic network; limited number of alternative north–south routes (particularly for buses and other large vehicles) would exacerbate problems further.
I Rail bridge rebuild would also require greater clearance under latest and more onerous regulations with potential issues over levels, access to the Spring Bridge Road car park and also associated costs (including loss of revenue during build programme);
I Massive negative impact on local traffic network due to introduction of two-way traffic on Spring Bridge Road, removal of the Haven Green diagonal and closure of Station Broadway;
I The addition of southbound traffic movements within the Spring Bridge Road junction with The Broadway would lead to unacceptable delays and queues;
I Further negative impact on traffic through the provision of a new signalised junction on The Mall;
I Significant increase in bus mileage due to the extra distance travelled to access the bus station and diversion following closure of both the Haven Green Diagonal and Station Broadway;
I Extremely high design and build costs, very unlikely to be viable; and
I Huge uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, potential Network Rail track possessions required during build and lack of champion to fund such a scheme.
Notes 6.156 The commentary on operation, construction, legal / planning issues and feasibility of over site development provided by TfL, as well as the Viability Assessment carried out by CB Richard Ellis and the variations discussed for Option 5 and 7 remain as potential sub-options for Option 13.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
73 Interchange Study
Option 14
Bus station at station forecourt, reposition Crossrail station entrance 6.157 Option 14 is a proposal from Urban Studio (Tribal Group) and is a variation on Option 12 where Haven Green East / Station Broadway becomes two-way for buses which can then serve a new bus station which would sit in place of the station forecourt. This option would require the relocation of the proposed Crossrail station (or demolition of Central Chambers) to accommodate two-way bus only movements. 6.158 Following feasibility design and initial modelling using TfL: Traffic Directorate TRANSYT model the original intention for general traffic to be diverted to use Spring Bridge Road was rejected due the delays incurred at the High Street / The Broadway junction, as a result the option was modified to see southbound general traffic continuing to use Haven Green East / Station Broadway.
Concept Design 6.159 The following is an overview of the General Principles and thinking behind the proposals:
I Station Broadway to become two-way for buses only
I Provision of a small ‘bus station’ which would be located in place of the forecourt area and also require the Crossrail station entrance to move further east
I The bus station could be ‘dynamic’ and assign buses to stops as they arrive
I Demolition of the public house on the south eastern corner of Station Broadway would allow for improvements to pedestrian routes to and from the town centre
I Passenger wishing to access the bus station would be able to use a new pedestrian crossing facility from either side of the bus station island
I Potential demolition of Villiers House to provide an opportunity to redevelop a more substantial site
6.160 Due to the spatial constraints Urban Studio (Tribal Group) suggested two sub- options for the bus station layout itself; these options include a number of important distinctions. Sketch plans of the ‘island bus station’ options are shown in Figures 6.10 and 6.11 overleaf.
Feasibility Design 6.161 Due to the accessibility issues associated with Option 14a this has been rejected in favour of a variation of Option 14b (to be known as Option 14 in this report). Due to the significant delays likely with buses crossing repeatedly using an offside arrangement, the need to maintain southbound general traffic on this link and the spatial requirements to turn terminating buses around the bus station island, we have retained nearside bus and general traffic movements. The proposals have been worked up to feasibility level and are shown in Drawing No. 22243601_114.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
74 Interchange Study
FIGURE 6.10 OPTION 14: ISLAND BUS STATION ‘A’
FIGURE 6.11 OPTION 14: ISLAND BUS STATION ‘B’
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
75 Interchange Study
6.162 Dynamic Bus Station Option - The use of a dynamic bus station, where buses would be assigned to stops as they arrived, has been rejected due by TfL: London Buses as a concept. Such an arrangement would be unworkable at a location like Ealing Broadway where route frequencies are high and it would also run contrary to London Buses current practice of grouping services which travel in the same destination at the same stops. As a result this sub-option has not been taken forward as part of the final Option 14 proposal.
General Arrangement 6.163 The proposals have been worked up to feasibility level and are shown in Drawing No. 22243601_114.
FIGURE 6.12 OPTION 14: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
6.164 The following is a list of the key features:
I Provision of a small island bus station opposite Ealing Broadway station
I Conversion of Haven Green East and Station Broadway to two-way operation for buses, taxis and cycles only, with southbound general traffic continuing to use the same space
I Terminating southbound buses would be able to turn around the southern end of the island and resume their northbound service
I Provision of new northbound bus stops on the western kerbline of Haven Green East
I Modification of the Station Broadway / The Mall / The Broadway junction to permit and accommodate northbound buses, taxis and cycles (only) from The Mall / The Broadway
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
76 Interchange Study
I Closure of the Haven Green Diagonal
I Modification of the Castlebar Road / Haven Green junction to allow the significantly revised traffic flows and movements
I Remodelling of the forecourt area
Public Realm 6.165 Due the similarities of the resultant carriageway layout around Haven Green that are associated with this option, the treatment of the area would effectively be the same as that applied to Option 5.
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.166 Option 14 can only accommodate up to 11 buses at the kerbside (not designated as stopping or standing) compared with 22 under the existing arrangement. Further detail on the stopping and standing arrangements for this option can be found in the Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.167 As Option 14 would lead to a reduction in total available kerbspace for buses in order to maximise those available the design does not include any loading or ‘kiss- and-ride facilities.
Costs & Programme 6.168 As this scheme is unfeasible, and although the highways works would appear to be within the bounds of reason, as agreed with the client team that we have not investigated the property acquisition costs. Therefore we have not costed this scheme but given the cost of the preceding options would suggest it is likely to be more expensive than at least Options 1a, 3c and 4. Any programme for this would need to be worked up with developers but it may be possible to complete such an option before the advent of Crossrail going live.
Appraisal Summary 6.169 Table 5.15 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.14 OPTION 14: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & + Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space 0 Highway Network -- Risk --
Environmental - Bus Station -- Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
77 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.170 The impacts of Option 14 are broadly similar to those which would result from the implementation of Option 12. The key difference would be the continued use of Haven Green east and Station Broadway by general traffic under Option 14.
Pros I Reduced bus mileage for services from the south as they would no longer have to use circuitous route around Haven Green;
I Improved interchange for users wishing to transfer from buses to other bus services or rail and underground services with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Potential increase in net open space on Haven Green;
Cons I Reduction in bus stop (x) and stand capacity (y) and therefore to reduce impact on stop / stand stress under existing service levels alone could only be met by changes to the bus network (i.e. extending and/or combining routes);
I High land acquisition costs through requirement to demolish several properties on the western side of Station Broadway;
I Significant carriageway widening required on Spring Bridge Road to accommodate two-way general and bus traffic and would lead to loss of trees on the western side of Haven Green;
I Rail bridge rebuild and carriageway widening would have a severe impact on the local traffic network; limited number of alternative north–south routes (particularly for buses and other large vehicles) would exacerbate problems further;
I Rail bridge rebuild would also require greater clearance under latest and more onerous regulations with potential issues over levels, access to the Spring Bridge Road car park and also associated costs (including loss of revenue during build programme);
I Negative impact on local traffic network due to introduction of two-way bus traffic Station Broadway and removal of the Haven Green diagonal and closure of Station Broadway;
I High design and build costs due to carriageway widening and bridge rebuild; and
I High levels of uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, potential Network Rail track possessions required during build and likely opposition from TfL (and other key stakeholders).
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
78 Interchange Study
Option 15
‘The Piazza’ - Bus Station over the Western Rail Tracks and Closure of The Broadway 6.171 Option 15 was submitted by a local resident and is broadly a variation of Option 3. It includes a new bus station of the same layout over the network rail line but the most significant change would see the closure of The Broadway (between Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway) and provision of a new, two-way link road around the area. A copy of the ‘The Piazza’ concept plan is shown in Figure 6.13.
FIGURE 6.13 OPTION 15: THE PIAZZA
Original Concept 6.172 The following is a summary of the principles behind the original sketch proposal:
I Provision of a link between Ealing Broadway Station beneath the road with shops and exits to the proposed bus station and new piazza
I Redevelopment of the Arcadia site to include a hotel, market stalls, library & bookshop and multiplex cinema
I Extension of the piazza across The Broadway to provide a pedestrian-only link to The Broadway Centre
I Diversion of all east-west traffic around a new two-way road across the southern side of Haven Green (Haven Green North closed to through traffic)
I A new bus station between the new link road and piazza
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
79 Interchange Study
I Underground car park beneath the redeveloped site with exits on either side
I Underground access to/from Dickens Yard
General Arrangement 6.173 The proposals have been worked up to feasibility level and are shown in Drawing No. 22243601_115:
I Closure of The Broadway between Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway with modification of the junctions at either end to accommodate the reduced number of traffic movements
I Carriageway and bridge widening on Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway to cater for two-way traffic movements
I Closure of Haven Green North at the mid-point (with access to frontage maintained) and replacement with new east-west between Haven Green East and West across the bottom of Haven Green
I Closure of the Haven Green Diagonal
I New signalised junctions at either end of the new east-west link road to manage traffic and pedestrian conflicts
I Provision of bus station over the rail tracks based on the Option 3 designs
I Remodelling of the forecourt area
FIGURE 6.14 OPTION 15: GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
80 Interchange Study
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.174 The arrangements for Option 15 are the same as those given for Option 3c.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.175 The change in the local road network would see all loading and ‘kiss-and-ride’ take place on the main carriageway. This would have an adverse impact on traffic flows around the area and has not been shown within the Option 14 design as a result.
Costs & Programme 6.176 Due to the extent of changes included within this option and significant negative impacts on the local traffic network, bus operations, environmental amenity and unlikely support from TfL (among other key stakeholders) it has not been deemed necessary to cost this option in full but it would significantly exceed that of Option 7. Such a scheme would need to be developer backed and this cost would be dwarfed by the Arcadia site redevelopment costs. The scale and massing would probably need to exceed the previous Glenkerrin application due to the reduction in the available development footprint indicated as part of the original concept. This scheme is unlikely to be economically viable.
Appraisal Summary 6.177 Table 6.16 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.15 OPTION 15: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & 0 Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network - Risk --
Environmental -- Bus Station ++ Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
Key Issues 6.178 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 15:
Pros I Increased stand capacity (+2 buses) with all stops / stands within close proximity of each other;
I Urban realm improved within town centre through pedestrianisation of The Broadway; and
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
81 Interchange Study
I Net increase in Haven Green open space.
Cons I Negative impact on local traffic network due to introduction of significant changes to road network;
I Increase in bus mileage for all ‘Uxbridge Road’ routes which are otherwise largely unaffected under any other option;
I General traffic similarly affected;
I High land acquisition costs through requirement to demolish several properties on the western side of Station Broadway and also part of The Arcadia Centre;
I Significant carriageway widening required on Spring Bridge Road to accommodate two-way general and bus traffic and would lead to loss of trees on the western side of Haven Green;
I New east-west link across the southern side of Haven Green would also require significant loss of trees;
I Rail bridge rebuild and carriageway widening would have a severe impact on the local traffic network; limited number of alternative north–south routes (particularly for buses and other large vehicles) would exacerbate problems further;
I Rail bridge rebuild would also require greater clearance under latest and more onerous regulations with potential issues over levels, access to the Spring Bridge Road car park and also associated costs (including loss of revenue during build programme);
I High design and build costs due to carriageway widening and bridge rebuild; and
I High levels of uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, Network Rail track possessions and air rights and likely opposition from numerous key stakeholders.
Variations 6.179 Due to the limited chance of progression of this option we do not believe there are likely to be any viable variations that merit further investigation.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
82 Interchange Study
Option 16
‘A Radical Plan for Ealing’ - Underground Bus Station Beneath the Arcadia Site 6.180 Option 16 was submitted by a local resident and includes a new underground bus station which would sit beneath a completely redeveloped Arcadia site. Access to and from the bus station would be made using a new ramp in place of Spring Bridge Road. The Haven Green diagonal and Station Broadway would be closed and a replaced by a new two-way link which reconnects all traffic with Haven Green West.
Original Concept 6.181 Sketch plans of ‘A Radical Plan for Ealing’ are shown in Figures 6.15 and 6.16.
FIGURE 6.15 OPTION 16: A RADICAL PLAN FOR EALING - OVERVIEW
6.182 The following is a summary of the principles behind the original sketch proposal:
I A new deck to be constructed at the level of the road in front of the present station
I Minimum building close to Haven green southern boundary
I Extend part of Haven Green into the heart of the site by means of ramps, landscape level change to new deck level
I Delete existing road from station to The Mall
I Form a pedestrian Piazza in the area between station and The Mall. This could incorporate a roller skating area in the summer and ice rink in the winter, with outside continental-style café seating
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
83 Interchange Study
I Existing road on east of Haven Green to access shops/station only – used by taxis and station access vehicles only, with turning area taking traffic back to roundabout and Madeley Road.
I There will be no N-S through traffic passing the station and endangering pedestrians emerging from station
I New dual-carriageway on west side of Haven Green with diversion away from Springbridge Road shops
I Springbridge Road to be pedestrianised with small shops in new building F on its east side
I New bus station to be located at same (low) level as railway tracks and served by new service road. Pedestrian accesses at east and west ends – possible with direct low-level access to station
I Car parking for shoppers and residents to be incorporated in two levels below main deck and access via new bus station service road
I Main Uxbridge Road to be moved northward by about 3m to permit widened public footways on south side which will be landscaped. Road level to be lowered with railings on each side to avoid un-authorised crossing by pedestrians
I Footpath on north side of re-aligned Uxbridge Road to access shops below main deck, with a small recessed ‘square’ relieving the building line
I Main part of development to be sited at higher deck level with shops below and two pedestrian bridges across Uxbridge Road each with steps, ramp and lift
FIGURE 6.16 OPTION 16: A RADICAL PLAN FOR EALING - ELEVATION
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
84 Interchange Study
I Maximum height of Building A to be 18 floors. This is well back from the main Uxbridge Road and from Haven Green, and by stepping the building back it will be visually less dominant from those two areas
I The spire of Christchurch will remain visible from The Mall in the east and along the E-W walkway below building A
I The landscaped area to south of Christchurch to be extended eastwards with pedestrian access to new Springbridge Road ‘mall’
General Arrangement & Public Realm 6.183 The following proposals for Option 16 are shown in Drawing No. 22243601_116:
FIGURE 6.17 OPTION 16: GENERAL ARRANGMENT
I Provision of an underground bus station beneath a redeveloped Arcadia site
I Access for buses only would be made using a new ramp in place of Spring Bridge Road.
I Pedestrianisation of Station Broadway (also allowing cyclists to use the link as a shared space)
I Spring Bridge Road would be replaced by a new two-way north-south link which reconnects all traffic with Haven Green West
I Modification of the Spring Bridge Road / The Broadway / High Street junction to accommodate the additional flow of exiting vehicles from Spring Bridge Road
I Removal of the Station Broadway / The Mall / The Broadway junction and replacement with a pelican crossing
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
85 Interchange Study
I Due to the additional delay associated with the new layout and proximity of turning movements, The Broadway would be need be widened between Spring Bridge Road and Station Broadway
I Modification of the Castlebar Road / Haven Green junction to allow the significantly revised traffic flows and movements
I Provision of a new taxi rank, drop-off and turnaround facility opposite the remodelled station forecourt
Bus Stopping & Standing Arrangements 6.184 Option 16 can accommodate 11 stopping buses and 10 standing buses which is similar to the existing arrangement. Further detail on the stopping and standing arrangements for this option can be found in the Technical Note.
Loading and “Kiss-and-ride” Facilities 6.185 Option 15 is similar to the arrangement shown for Option 13 and therefore the removal of all stops along Haven Green east would give the opportunity to provide loading and/or Kiss-and-ride facilities along its eastern kerbline.
Costs & Programme 6.186 As with Option 15, due to the extent of changes included within this option and significant negative impacts on the local traffic network, bus operations, environmental amenity and unlikely support from TfL (among other key stakeholders) we do not believe this scheme is viable. As a result we have not costed this option but it is by far the most complex and potentially costly of all the options considered within this report. As a result we have not costed or programmed the scheme.
Appraisal Summary 6.187 Table 6.16 presents a summary of the appraisal scoring; the detailed commentary for this option can be found in Appendix A.
TABLE 6.16 OPTION 16: APPRAISAL SUMMARY
User Experience Feasibility Deliverability
Interchange & ++ Buildability -- Affordability -- Accessibility
Urban Realm + Bus Operation -- Land Use Policy +
Open Space ++ Highway Network -- Risk --
Environmental -- Bus Station - Property Loss -- Amenity Capacity
Acceptability --
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
86 Interchange Study
Key Issues 6.188 The following is a summary of the appraisal undertaken for Option 16:
Pros I Improved interchange (subject to the feasibility of providing a link between the bus station and the LU / NR station);
I Urban realm improved within town centre through pedestrianisation of Station Broadway; and
I Net increase in Haven Green open space.
Cons I Underground bus station will not be supported by TfL: London Buses;
I Reduced stop capacity (-1 bus);
I Massive negative impact on local traffic network due to introduction of significant changes to road network including a new signalised junction and the removal of the existing Station Broadway link;
I Increase in bus mileage for the majority of routes;
I Scheme could only be implemented as part of a developer lead project;
I New north-south link (including a new bridge over the rail lines) through the Arcadia site which would reduce the available footprint for redevelopment;
I Major impact on all types of traffic during build programme; and
I High levels of uncertainty and risk due to property acquisition / demolition, Network Rail track possessions and air rights and likely opposition from numerous key stakeholders.
Variations 6.189 Due to the limited chance of progression of this option we do not believe there are likely to be any viable variations that merit further investigation.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
87 Interchange Study
7 Bus Network Analysis
Introduction 7.1 As some of the options provide only a limited increase in physical bus stopping and standing capacity and with bus usage in Ealing expected to increase as a result of the anticipated growth in patronage across London and also following the introduction of Crossrail, we have analysed the impact of these changes to ascertain alternative bus network arrangements that may need to be considered in order to meet demand. Additional bus usage can be accommodated in several ways:
I By utilising existing spare capacity;
I By increasing the size and capacity of the vehicles used, including where appropriate conversion from single-deck to double-deck buses;
I By increasing service frequency;
I By introducing new routes;
I By a combination of some or all of these. 7.2 Each of these has a different impact on kerb usage through the number of stops and stands required. There is also the opportunity to reduce bus stop and especially stand ‘stress’ by:
I Extending routes; and/or
I Combining routes 7.3 This section addresses usage and capacity issues, considering whether and how the interchange could provide the necessary stop and stand space to accommodate current and forecast future bus usage. First it reviews current usage of the bus services that pass through or terminate at Haven Green and then compares their peak hour usage with the capacity supplied at current frequencies for existing and larger bus types. This work is a precursor to the study which we understand Transport for London is preparing which will estimate forecast post-Crossrail bus usage in more detail and will be available during late 2010. In the interim, and as agreed by the client team, we have allowed for passengers volumes on all routes to increase by 30% from 2008/09 levels. We would suggest that this element of the study is revisited when the TfL analysis is complete.
Bus Network Overview 7.4 As shown in Figure 7.1 there are currently 15 bus routes serving Ealing Broadway during the day (3 of which offer 24-hour services) and a further three additional night bus services. Table 7.1 gives a summary of the service frequencies at Ealing Broadway. 7.5 Haven Green acts not only as an important interchange between different bus services and with the rail/underground station, but also as a terminus for at present 9 routes (up to 56 buses per hour at peak times). Terminating buses lay
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
88 Interchange Study over at a series of stands around Haven Green, which together provide a total of 11 standing spaces and with an average occupancy of 5 bph per stand. This will reduce by 4 bph when the plans to extend route E10 from Ealing Broadway to Chiswick Business Park take place in late 2010.
FIGURE 7.1 EXISTING BUS NETWORK
TABLE 7.1 EXISTING BUS FREQUENCIES
Frequency (Buses per Hour) Route AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak Saturday Sunday
65 8 8 8 8 8
112 4 4 4 4 3
226 5 5 5 5 3
297 6 6 6 6 5
E1 7 6 8 6 6
E2 8 8 8 8 5
E7 5 5 5 5 3
E8 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 6
E9 5 5 5 5 3
E10 4 4 4 4 3
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
89 Interchange Study
Existing Operation 7.6 Operation of the existing arrangement is quite complex, with stops and stands arranged around Haven Green. All routes arrive at Ealing Broadway via Haven Green north, turning right at the roundabout into Haven Green east. The operation of each route is described below, while the stop and stand allocation for each route is shown in Table 7.2.
I Route 65 sets down and stands at stop B in the lay-by on the west side of Haven Green east, which can accommodate 2 buses, and picks up at stop F outside the station;
I Routes 112 and E8 set down at stop X1 at the north end of Haven Green east, stand at points Z1-Z2 on the west side and pick up at stop F (E8) or stop G (112) in Station Broadway;
I Routes 226 and 297 set down at stop C in Haven Green east, stand at point Z3- Z4 at the north west end of the diagonal road before completing a circuit to pick up at stop C and departing along the diagonal;
I Routes E1 and E10 set down, stand and pick up at stop D on the Haven Green diagonal;
I Route E7 sets down, stands and picks up at stop A in Haven Green east;
I Route E9 sets down and stands at point X1 in Haven Green east and picks up at stop E;
I Route E2 sets down and picks up at stop F in Station Broadway southbound and stop E on the Haven Green diagonal northbound.
TABLE 7.2 EXISTING BUS STOP & STAND ARRANGEMENTS
Route Set-down Stand Pick-up
65 B B F
112 X1 Z1-2 G
226 C Z3-4 C
297 C Z3-4 C
E1 D D D
E2 (n) - - E
E2 (s) - - F
E7 A A A
E8 X1 Z1-2 F
E9 X2 X2 E
E10 D D D
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
90 Interchange Study
Passenger Loadings 7.7 We have carried out an analysis, on a route by route basis, of the current usage of each of the routes that pass through or terminate at Haven Green (NB: services only serving ‘Uxbridge Road’ have been excluded from our analysis as they are largely unaffected by the vast majority of options). The analysis is based on Transport for London’s Bus Origin Destination Survey (BODS) data from the most recent survey for each route. We obtained BODS data (in the form of passenger loads along each route in each direction) for the following time periods:
I AM peak 3-hours 0700 – 0959
I Off-peak 6-hours 1000 – 1559
I PM peak 3-hours 1600 – 1859 7.8 Since the routes were surveyed in different years, we have factored the data to a common year (2008/09) using the latest annual London-wide passenger journeys totals published in TfL’s Annual Reports, as shown in Table 7.3:
TABLE 7.3 ANNUAL GROWTH IN BUS USAGE
Year Passenger Journeys Route Surveyed (millions)
2003/04 1702 65, E7, E8
2004/05 1793
2005/06 1816
2006/07 1880 112,297
2007/08 2176
2008/09 2247 226, E1, E2, E9, E10
7.9 We estimated AM and PM peak hour passenger loads by using the standard assumption that 50% of the peak 3-hour total occurs in the busiest peak hour. The resulting 2008/09 AM and PM peak hour flows in each direction are shown on a series of graphs (presented in Appendix C). The graphs also show the additional bus usage estimated by 2017. These estimates will be replaced by more accurate forecasts when TfL completes its own analysis of post-Crossrail bus demand.
Route Capacity 7.10 Based on our outline assessment, it would be advisable to plan for a combined increase of about 3 bph on routes 65, 112 and E7, however we believe this would not require additional stand space as it would be offset by the reduction of 4 bph achieved by extending route E10. 7.11 We recommend that the exact locations and detail of stops / stands are reassessed following London Buses more detailed Network Planning review.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
91 Interchange Study
8 Summary and Conclusions
Study Objectives
8.1 As discussed earlier in this report, the principal aim of this study is to develop a robust and auditable long-term solution to the interchange arrangements at Ealing Broadway and as indicated in the Brief, the preferred option must meet a number of key objectives so will need to:
I Provide the most effective solution for dealing with bus operational and infrastructure needs to enhance bus/rail interchange
I Complement the new planned high-quality station forecourt and provide a sense of arrival
I Enhance the visual and physical connections between the station and town centre/Haven Green
I Provide better information and interchange facilities
I Reduce severance and the need for crossing of roads
I Ensure there is no net loss of open space at Haven Green
I Quantify, justify and seek to mitigate any adverse impact on traffic flows and movements within the study area
I Enhance pedestrian and cycle routes to and from the station
I Ensure that the facilities can accommodate transport usage growth 8.2 Essentially the overarching objective is to develop an option which not only meets the interchange and operational requirements but also provides the chance to improve the local environment and makes the most of local opportunities.
Appraisal Results Summary
8.3 Table 8.1 offers a comparison of the summary scoring for each of the options appraised.
Recommendations
8.4 Based on the appraisal undertaken as part of this study, the following gives a summary of and reasoning behind the recommendation or rejection of each option. The ‘Reserve’ Options may be deliverable and worthy further investigation but we do not believe they offer enough benefits to rival the preferred option.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
92 Interchange Study
TABLE 8.1 OPTION APPRAISAL: RESULTS SUMMARY
Category Criterion Option
1 3c 4 5 7 12 13 14 15 16
User Experience Interchange & Accessibility + + + 0 0 + 0 + + 0 Urban Realm ++ - + + + 0 + + -- + Open Space ++ 0 0 ++ ++ + ++ 0 ++ ++ Environmental Amenity 0 + + + + ------Feasibility Buildability ++ - + ------Bus Operation 0 ++ 0 ------Highway Network 0 - - 0 ------Bus Station Capacity + + 0 ++ ++ -- ++ -- -- - Deliverability Affordability ++ ------Land Use Policy ++ + + + + + + + + + Risks + - ++ ------Property Loss ++ -- ++ ------Acceptability ++ - + ------
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
93 Interchange Study
Option 1a - Preferred 8.5 Subject to detailed design, Option 1a has no negative impacts, meets the vast majority of the study objectives and also offers achievable improvements within a short timeframe. A further benefit is that although Option 1a does not preclude any future improvements or options once it is built. It also affordable and low risk and as a result we recommend that Option 1a is considered to be the preferred option and is taken forward to detailed design.
Option 3b - Reject 8.6 This option should be rejected due to the irreplaceable net loss of 2,500m 2 of common land and impact on the trees on the southern side of Haven Green.
Option 3c - Reserve 8.7 This option has potential for significant interchange and bus operation benefits but would require further investigation of property acquisition costs and acceptability before progressing to detailed design and the development of a full TfL business case.
Option 4 - Reserve 8.8 This option has previously been rejected by LB Ealing’s planning committee, although the reasons for its failure to meet approval may be surmountable, further discussion with officers and members is essential before any further work on this option is commissioned. As noted in the option appraisal it does have limitations in terms of capacity but these could also be addressed through a restructure of the existing bus network. Again, extensive discussion with TfL will be required before this option is progressed to the detailed design stage and subsequent development of a business case.
Option 5 - Reject 8.9 This option should be rejected due to difficulties, costs and risks associated with construction. Although it provides more bus station capacity, it would however lead to a significant increase in bus operational costs through an increase in bus mileage. In its present form and in the current economic climate over station development is unlikely to be viable and as such it is unlikely that a champion will wish to progress the considerable design costs required to even confirm its feasibility. If this option were to be taken forward it is likely that significant opposition would be received from residents backing onto the area and is unlikely win unanimous support from the various bodies within TfL.
Option 7 - Reject 8.10 Option 7 retains all of the disbenefits of Option 5 and would also cause further traffic congestion through the introduction of a new signalised junction on The Mall which would lead to delays for all traffic (including buses). It would also be more costly still, so this option should be dropped.
Option 12 - Reject 8.11 Option 12 fails to meet a number of the study objectives, and even if it were to find developer support as part of a more substantial scheme to redevelop the
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
94 Interchange Study
Arcadia site, interchange improvements would come at the cost of increased bus mileage for many routes and delays across the local network for all traffic.
Option 13 - Reject 8.12 The major redistribution of traffic required following the closure of both the Haven Green diagonal and Station Broadway make this scheme unworkable from a traffic point of view. It is also has inherent problems associated with the bus station build over the District Line tracks with Option 7 and the need to widen both the carriageway and rail bridge on Spring Bridge Road / Haven Green west. As a result this option should not be considered further.
Option 14 - Reject 8.13 The final feasibility design for Option 14 may be considered as a compromise when compared with the original concept but the changes have been made to make the scheme more feasible. It does however still suffer from numerous insurmountable issues including the significant property acquisition costs and also negative impact it would have on the traffic network.
Option 15 - Reject 8.14 Closing The Broadway with diversion of traffic around a new link through the south side of Haven Green and associated junctions would lead to significant delays for all users. The difficulties of resolving the bus station entry / exit and traffic conflicts when coupled with the cost of widening Spring Bridge Road (carriageway and bridge) to accommodate two-way traffic and the impact on the listed trees on two sides of Haven Green mean that this option is a non-starter and is unlikely to find local support.
Option 16 - Reject 8.15 This option should be rejected as the provision of an underground bus station will not be supported by TfL. The changes suggested to the highway network would also lead to significant delays for all traffic and reduce the available land for the necessary redevelopment of the Arcadia site which would be needed to financially support this option.
Way Forward
8.16 We would recommend that Option 1a is taken forward to consultation and detailed design. However it would be prudent to guarantee funding before going to the public with more detailed plans and it is unlikely that the standard LIP allocation requested or awarded will be sufficient to fund Option 1a in full. As a result it is likely that funding will need to be drawn from a combination of a TfL “Major Scheme” bid in a future LIP submission and S106 money from adjacent development sites.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
95 Interchange Study
APPENDIX
A
DETAILED OPTION APPRAISAL
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 1A
APPENDIX TABLE A.1 OPTION 1A: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Enhanced routes to / from bus stops with Bus – Rail / LU + + Accessibility improvements to forecourt, wayfinding and legibility
Some enhancement of routes between bus Bus - Bus + stops with improvements to wayfinding and legibility.
Bus – Town Enhanced routes to / from bus stops with + Centre improvements to (wider) footways, wayfinding and legibility, removal of street clutter
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis ++ portion with existing feeder facility maintained Urban Realm Built Heritage Enhanced setting for conservation area / ++ ++ Haven Green Trees Additional tree planting proposed ++
Public realm Comprehensive public realm improvements ++ proposed including additional public space at station forecourt Pedestrian Improved pedestrian crossing facilities + movement following removal of roundabout to north east of Haven Green Open Space The proposed inclusion of a signalised ++ junction at Haven Green east / Madeley Road instead of the existing roundabout and removal of Stop B will increase the net area of Haven Green
Environmental Generally unchanged during construction and 0 Amenity operation, without change to bus service frequencies the impact on environmental amenity will be neutral
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.2 OPTION 1A: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Option 1a requires no significant changes ++ on or off the carriageway network and is therefore very buildable
Bus Operation Some limited but acceptable operational 0 changes during construction and generally unchanged during operation. Potential future operational difficulties due to increased demand due to background growth and introduction of Crossrail, however constraints may be overcome by restructuring bus services
Highway Generally unchanged 0 Network Bus Station The inclusion of the proposed signalised + Capacity junction to the Haven Green east / Madeley Road roundabout and removal of Stop B will increase the net kerbspace for stopping and standing buses. Future demand and service growth, however constraints may be overcome by restructuring bus services
APPENDIX TABLE A.3 OPTION 1A: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Cost Estimate = £4.25m ++ Potential for cost to be met through wider S106 contributions from development in Ealing town centre area, e.g. Arcadia scheme. Alternatively, external funding from bodies such as TfL through LIP programme - possibly staged (or a combination of S106 and external funding
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Land Use Potential to be commensurate with land ++ Policy use policy. No significant change of use, subject to no net loss of green/open space at Haven Green. Proposal would need to be sympathetic to Haven Green Conservation Area. Impact on existing trees requires consideration. Area also falls within an Archaeological Area of Interest Risks Low - likely to be limited to ensuring that + proposed highway works to Haven Green West, The Broadway and associated junctions can accommodate traffic movements (including continuity of bus services) and do not unduly disrupt movement during the construction period. Fairly limited scale and generally development of minor significance Property Loss No demolition of property required. No ++ significant indirect impact on property envisaged Acceptability LB Ealing Strong support due to overall ++ ++ improvements to usability, feasibility and ease of deliverability Transport for Strong support from Interchange, Buses, ++ London LUL, Taxis, DTO, NAT likely Network Rail Unaffected, support likely ++ / Crossrail Private sector Private sector and developers generally + / Developers unaffected, so potential for overall support due to limited negative impacts General Overall support likely due to limited + public negative impacts
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 3C
APPENDIX TABLE A.4 OPTION 3C: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Passengers approximately equidistant to Bus – Rail / LU - + Accessibility Ealing Broadway Station when compared with the existing situation; they will however have to cross in two stages to change mode.
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus ++ standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other
Bus – Town All bus boarding and alighting points moved ++ Centre closer to Town Centre
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis + portion with feeder rank capacity slightly reduced Urban Realm Built Heritage Enhanced setting for conservation area / - - Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green with route severed by bus interchange in south east corner. Trees Additional tree planting proposed but 6 no - trees lost Public realm Comprehensive public realm improvements ++ proposed including additional public space at station forecourt Pedestrian Some disbenefit to pedestrians due to - movement increased frequency of interruption along the footways on the southern approaches to Haven Green (east and west) and also requirement to cross in two stages to interchange between bus and NR / LUL services. Improved pedestrian crossing following removal of roundabout to north east of Haven Green but bus interchange reduces pedestrian access to north east corner of Haven Green from station.
Open Space The proposed inclusion of a signalised 0 junction at Haven Green east / Madeley Road instead of the existing roundabout and infilling of the Haven Green diagonal mean that the net area of Haven Green remains as existing.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Environmental Reduced mileage and circulation of buses + Amenity along with the bus station’s position further from frontages on both sides of Haven Green will reduce local noise and vibration, and improve air quality levels.
APPENDIX TABLE A.5 OPTION 3C: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Some level issues particularly when providing - links to / from Spring Bridge Road. Structural suitability of existing car park slab needs further investigation to better inform this aspect of the appraisal. Bus Operation Improved bus operation and reduction in bus ++ mileage due to removal of current circuitous routing for several services. Increase in bus stopping / standing capacity. Highway Generally unchanged, but potentially some - Network delay through number of movements and conflicts to and from bus station Bus Station Increased stop / stand capacity likely so + Capacity should be able to cope with potential background demand and subsequent service growth associated with Crossrail
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.6 OPTION 3C: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Cost Estimate = £10,050,000 - Understood to be no specific funding available from TfL at present. Cost could potentially be borne by S106 contributions from development in Ealing town centre area. This could however require significant (and viable) development to occur elsewhere to accumulate this sum. Nor would S106 contributions be forthcoming until, at the very earliest, construction commences other development sites. Likely to require a package of S106 contributions from a range of sites (but this would be limited to a maximum of 5 sites under new statutory planning obligation tests). Alternatively, Community Infrastructure Levy could be used, subject to this policy being in place for Ealing Borough Land Use Identified in UDP as forming part of a wider + Policy development site (Site 63). Allocated for range of uses including retail and residential. Proposal envisages that redeveloped site would secure interchange links, but no specific reference to new bus station, although under this proposal only part of site would be developed. Proposal would need to ensure no net loss of green/open space at Haven Green plus consideration given to existing trees and Conservation Area. Site lies within Archaeological Area of Interest.
Risks Moderate to high. Possible need to - Compulsory Purchase Order to assemble land – and this might be resisted by key affected parties. No clear funding package available, which could jeopardise delivery timescales. Likely low impact during construction, save for affected properties. Potential positive outcome from reduced bus flow around Haven Green
Property Loss 7a – 10 Central Chambers, 8 Spring Bridge -- Road and Network Rail (BBC car park) land would need to be acquired. Significant costs attached to this, especially given the development potential of the Network Rail land. Potential indirect impact on 6 Central Chambers during construction period.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Acceptability LB Ealing Some localised support on this option but - - some significant issues mean it is unlikely to be supported by Network Rail, TfL and Ealing Councillors
Transport for Possible support due to reduction in bus + London mileage from and improved bus-bus interchange Network Rail / Impact on Network Rail lines during - Crossrail construction, so potential for opposition Private sector Significant property loss required so -- / Developers significant potential for opposition. Also likely to be resisted by affected parties, especially those promoting development at the Arcadia site.
General public Mixed reaction likely 0
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 4
APPENDIX TABLE A.7 OPTION 4 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Interchange & Bus – Rail / Passengers approximately equidistant to 0 + Accessibility LU Ealing Broadway Station when compared with the existing situation.
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus ++ standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other
Bus – Town Passengers approximately equidistant to 0 Centre Town Centre when compared with the existing situation.
Provision of more accessible / visible Taxis + front portion, feeder rank capacity reduced Urban Realm Built Heritage Enhanced setting for conservation area / + + Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green. Trees Additional tree planting proposed but 10 - no trees lost Public realm Comprehensive public realm ++ improvements proposed including additional public space at station forecourt Pedestrian Greater severance due to widening of - movement eastern side of Haven Green to provide bus interchange but improvements for pedestrian movement across Haven Green.
Open Space The proposed inclusion of a signalised 0 junction at Haven Green east / Madeley Road instead of the existing roundabout and infilling of the Haven Green diagonal mean that the net area of Haven Green remains as existing. Environmental Some impact during construction but + Amenity virtually unchanged noise, vibration, air quality during operation.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.8 OPTION 4 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Some level issues particularly when + providing links to / from Spring Bridge Road. Also some potential issues regarding ability to accommodate existing trees on the eastern side of Haven Green, otherwise relatively straight forward
Bus Operation Some limited but acceptable operational 0 changes during construction and generally unchanged during operation. Potential future operational difficulties due to increased demand due to background growth and introduction of Crossrail, however constraints may be overcome by restructuring bus services Highway Drop-off traffic no longer able to use the - Network Haven Green diagonal so likely increase in flows through Town Centre from traffic wishing to head north, though the removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction. Delays also likely due to complex junction arrangement proposed to replace Madeley Road roundabout and accommodate bus / pedestrian movements.
Bus Station Bus stopping / standing kerbspace 0 Capacity approximately the same as existing. Limited scope for future demand and service growth, however constraints may be overcome by restructuring bus services.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.9 OPTION 4 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Cost Estimate = £7,500,000 - With no external funding presently likely to be available from TfL then would funding need to be sourced from elsewhere. Potential funding could come through S106 contributions from development in Ealing town centre area. Contributions through this avenue would need to be secured from no more than 5 development sites in order to accord with new statutory guidelines on development obligations. Alternatively, a Community Infrastructure Levy could be used, subject to this being in place in Ealing Borough Council. Land Use Key issue relates to ensuring no net loss + Policy of green/open space at Haven Green plus consideration given to existing trees and design being sympathetic to Haven Green Conservation Area. Site also lies within Archaeological Area of Interest. Potential for scheme design to overcome these issues Risks Low. Key delivery risks limited to ++ managing the impact on highways and continuity of bus services during construction Property Loss No property affected directly or ++ indirectly Acceptability LB Ealing Although promoted by private sector - + developers and supported by council officers, the scheme was rejected by members at planning committee in 2008, with further work it may be possible to address the reasons for rejection Transport for Previous application was supported by TfL + London Buses Network Rail Network Rail / Crossrail largely + / Crossrail unaffected during construction and operation, so potential for support possible
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Private sector Previously promoted by private sector + / Developers developers so potential for support possible
General Mixed reaction likely 0 public
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 5
APPENDIX TABLE A.10 OPTION 5 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub- Commentary Score criterion Individual Overall
Interchange & Bus – Rail / Assuming it is possible to connect the proposed ++ 0 Accessibility LU bus station with the proposed Crossrail link- bridge then there will be a significant reduction in walk distance between bus and NR / LU services through the provision of a new ticket hall and gateline.
All bus services currently stopping and standing Bus - Bus ++ around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other.
Bus – Town Majority of passengers will be dropped off a -- Centre considerable distance from the Town Centre when compared with the existing arrangement.
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis -- portion but without retaining a variant of the existing feeder facility there will be a significant reduction in capacity
Built Enhanced setting for conservation area / Haven Urban Realm + + Heritage Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green.
Additional tree planting proposed but 1 no tree Trees + lost.
Comprehensive public realm improvements Public realm + proposed including additional public space at station forecourt but greater severance due to widening of eastern side of Haven Green to access bus station.
Pedestrian Some disbenefit to pedestrians due to 0 movement increased interruption Haven Green east at the new entrance to the bus station. Greater severance due to widening of eastern side of Haven Green to access bus station but improvements for pedestrian movement across Haven Green.
Additional tree planting proposed but 1 no tree Open Space ++ lost.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub- Commentary Score criterion Individual Overall
Environmental Potentially high impact during construction but + Amenity the effects on noise, vibration, air quality during operation will be reduced around Haven Green. There will however be an adverse impact on the Madeley Road properties which back onto the proposed bus station and potential development overhead.
APPENDIX TABLE A.11 OPTION 5 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Significant construction challenges, as -- outlined in the buildability assessment detailed above, which although they may not be insurmountable are likely to be very costly. Bus Operation Significant increase in bus mileage due to -- longer routing required to access bus station. Offset to some extent by increase in bus stopping and standing capacity.
Highway Assuming the Haven Green diagonal is closed: 0 Network drop-off traffic no longer able to use the diagonal so there would be an increase in flows through Town Centre from traffic wishing to head north. The removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction. Delays also likely due from the introduction of the new signalised crossing at the entrance to the bus station.
Bus Station Significant increase in bus stopping / standing ++ Capacity capacity.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.12 OPTION 5 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Cost Estimate = £37.8m-£74.5m -- Indicative development appraisals suggest that even allowing for significant development above the bus station, the proposals are unlikely to be viable.
Land Use Identified as development opportunity in UDP + Policy (Site 63). Policy advocates station redevelopment and interchange improvement with possible over track development, including encouraging substantial office space. Potential impact on locally listed building (rail shed). Also adjacent to Conservation Area (Haven Green) and residential area to the north. Generally, this option might be able to accord with planning policy but could be challenging Risks High. Concerns regarding possibility of -- increasing construction costs. Very considerable uncertainty that the finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even through S106 or Community Infrastructure Levy provisions. Additional risk through potential need and implementation of Compulsory Purchase Order. Likely requirement to enter discussions with Network Rail and Crossrail, adding further complexity to delivery. If development promoted above bus station deck, then scale of building could be very significant, and creating a major visual impact on Ealing’s built form and skyline. Challenging to see how build programme could tie in with Crossrail works, programmed at a latest to come forward by 2016
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Property Loss Direct impact on 41 – 43 Haven Green plus -- Ealing Squash Courts which would need to be demolished. Also probable impact on 31 – 40 Haven Green (access/servicing route temporarily affected at the very least), and Ealing Broadway mainline station. If new ticket hall were included, then this would require the acquisition and reconfiguration of further properties fronting Haven Green (Nos. 44-49). Significant development height above the station could also have indirect impact on residential properties to the north, Villiers House and possibly those to the south fronting the Mall through rights to lights claims Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for Likely opposition due to additional bus -- London mileage and operational issues Network Rail / Likely opposition due to potential impact on -- Crossrail station improvement works Private sector Assessment indicates that redevelopment is - / Developers not financially viable and therefore unlikely to find support from the private sector General public Although a mixed reaction likely and the -- scheme is supported by Save Ealing Centre, there is likely to be strong opposition from the residents of the Madeley Road properties which back on to the proposed bus station and any over station development.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 7
APPENDIX TABLE A.13 OPTION 7 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Assuming it is possible to connect the Bus – Rail / LU ++ 0 Accessibility proposed bus station with the proposed Crossrail link-bridge then there will be a significant reduction in walk distance between bus and NR / LU services through the provision of a new ticket hall and gateline.
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus ++ standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other.
Bus – Town Majority of passengers will be dropped off a -- Centre considerable distance from the Town Centre when compared with the existing layout.
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis -- portion but without retaining a variant of the existing feeder facility there will be a significant reduction in capacity
Enhanced setting for conservation area / Urban Realm Built Heritage + + Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green.
Additional tree planting proposed but 1 no Trees + tree lost.
Comprehensive public realm improvements Public realm + proposed including additional public space at station forecourt but greater severance due to widening of eastern side of Haven Green to access bus station.
Pedestrian Some disbenefit to pedestrians due to 0 movement increased interruption Haven Green east at the new entrance to the bus station. Greater severance due to widening of eastern side of Haven Green to access bus station but improvements for pedestrian movement across Haven Green.
Additional open space land gained from Open Space ++ removal of diagonal road across Haven Green.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Environmental Potentially high impact during construction + Amenity but the effects on noise, vibration, air quality during operation will be reduced around Haven Green. There will however be an adverse impact on the Madeley Road properties which back onto the proposed bus station and potential development overhead.
APPENDIX TABLE A.14 OPTION 7 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Significant construction challenges, as -- outlined in the buildability assessment detailed above, which although they may not be insurmountable are likely to be very costly. Bus Operation Significant increase in bus mileage due to -- longer routing required to access bus station. Offset to some extent by increase in bus stopping and standing capacity. Highway Assuming the Haven Green diagonal is closed: - Network drop-off traffic no longer able to use the diagonal so there would be an increase in flows through Town Centre from traffic wishing to head north. The removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction. Delays also likely due from the introduction of the new signalised crossing at the entrance to the bus station.
Bus Station Significant increase in bus stopping / standing ++ Capacity capacity
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.15 OPTION 7 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Cost Estimate = £47.5m-£84.3m -- Indicative development appraisals suggest that even allowing for significant development above the bus station, the proposals are unlikely to be viable.
Land Use Identified as development opportunity in UDP + Policy (Site 63). Policy advocates station redevelopment and interchange improvement with possible over track development, including encouraging substantial office space. Potential impact on locally listed building (rail shed). Also adjacent to Conservation Area (Haven Green) and residential area to the north. Generally, this option might be able to accord with planning policy but could be challenging Risks High. Concerns regarding possibility of -- increasing construction costs. Very considerable uncertainty that the finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even through S106 or Community Infrastructure Levy provisions. Additional risk through potential need and implementation of Compulsory Purchase Order. Likely requirement to enter discussions with Network Rail and Crossrail, adding further complexity to delivery. If development promoted above bus station deck, then scale of building could be very significant, and creating a major visual impact on Ealing’s built form and skyline. Challenging to see how build programme could tie in with Crossrail works, programmed at a latest to come forward by 2016
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Property Loss Direct impact on 41 – 43 Haven Green plus -- Ealing Squash Courts which would need to be demolished. Also probable impact on 31 – 40 Haven Green (access/servicing route temporarily affected at the very least), and Ealing Broadway mainline station. If new ticket hall were included, then this would require the acquisition and reconfiguration of further properties fronting Haven Green (Nos. 44-49). Significant development height above the station could also have indirect impact on residential properties to the north, Villiers House and possibly those to the south fronting the Mall through rights to lights claims Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for Likely opposition due to additional bus -- London mileage and operational issues, and traffic delays due to the proposed new junction on The Mall Network Rail / Likely opposition due to potential impact on -- Crossrail station improvement works Private sector Assessment indicates that redevelopment is - / Developers not financially viable and therefore unlikely to find support from the private sector General public Although a mixed reaction likely and the -- scheme is supported by Save Ealing Centre, there is likely to be strong opposition from the residents of the Madeley Road properties which back on to the proposed bus station and any over station development.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 12
APPENDIX TABLE A.16 OPTION 12 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Broadly similar to the existing arrangement. Bus – Rail / LU + + Accessibility Some routes benefit and therefore passengers benefit from more direct route to the station and reduced journey times
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus + standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other but northbound and southbound still severed by Haven Green east with no direct link between services
Bus – Town Broadly similar to the existing arrangement. 0 Centre
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis + portion with the existing feeder rank modified to increase capacity
Enhanced setting for conservation area / Urban Realm Built Heritage + 0 Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green.
Major impact on trees on the western side of Trees -- Haven Green Public realm Comprehensive public realm improvements + proposed including additional public space at station forecourt, tempered by increased severance on the western side of Haven Green Pedestrian Broadly similar pedestrian movements - movement maintained as per the existing arrangement although pedestrians are likely to experience greater delays and difficulty crossing the Spring Bridge Road / The Broadway and Spring Station Broadway / The Broadway junctions
Some land take from western side of Haven Open Space + Green but more than compensated for through the additional open space gained from removal of the Haven Green diagonal
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Environmental Significant negative impact through -- Amenity congestion created by two-way traffic through the Spring Bridge Road/The Broadway and also on frontages on the western side of Haven Green due the worsening of noise, vibration and air quality through heavier traffic flows on Spring Bridge Road
APPENDIX TABLE A.17 OPTION 12 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability New and widened bridge on Spring Bridge - Road required to accommodate two-way traffic flow. Increased height required to clear rail lines under latest guidance will lead to additional difficulties with levels Bus Operation Increase in bus mileage due to closure of -- Haven Green diagonal and requirement for buses to circulate through the Town Centre. Significant reduction in stop / stand capacity will require a complete bus network recast, otherwise this option will be unworkable due to lack of standing space
Highway Major delays at the Spring Bridge Road / The -- Network Broadway junction through the introduction of two-way traffic and also at the Station Broadway / The Broadway junction through the introduction of two-way buses & taxis. Assuming the Haven Green diagonal is closed: drop-off traffic no longer able to use the diagonal so there would be an increase in flows through Town Centre from those wishing to head north. The removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction but this would be offset by the introduction of southbound traffic within the junction
Bus Station Significant reduction in stop / stand capacity -- Capacity will require a complete bus network recast, otherwise this option will be unworkable due to lack of standing space. No scope for future demand and service growth
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.18 OPTION 12 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Land assembly costs would be high as part of -- the Waterglade Centre required in order to widen Spring Bridge Road. Widening of the bridge also likely to be costly, given technical issues with developing over Network Rail lines and meeting their specifications. Remodelling of Spring Bridge Road/The Broadway junction also likely to be an expensive proposition.
Land Use Key issue relates to a likely loss of + Policy green/open space at Haven Green plus the impact of road widening on mature trees lining Haven Green west but these issues could potentially be resolvable.
Risks High. Possible need for Compulsory Purchase -- Order to assemble land particularly in relation to the Waterglade Centre. Discussions with Network Rail would be needed regarding bridge widening over rail lines. Loss of public open space would increase the risk further. Difficult to justify likely costs versus potential benefits. Would require significant external funding and not clear that this would be available. Likely to have long lead in delivery timescales attached to the option.
Property Loss Loss of 8 Spring Gardens and eastern flank of -- the Arcadia Centre. The latter could require a very significant reconfiguration of the centre, increasing costs further.
Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for The impact on bus mileage and operational -- London issues through insufficient capacity mean that this option will not be supported by TfL Buses The significant increase in network delay and congestion will not be supported by TfL: Traffic Directorate or Forward Planning
Network Rail / Unaffected 0 Crossrail
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Private sector Likely to be resisted by affected parties, -- / Developers especially those promoting development at the Arcadia site as well as existing occupiers in the Arcadia Centre. General public Although a mixed reaction is likely, loss of -- some public open space and trees along western edge of Haven Green likely to be unacceptable.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 13
APPENDIX TABLE A.19 OPTION 13 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Assuming it is possible to connect the Bus – Rail / LU ++ 0 Accessibility proposed bus station with the proposed Crossrail link-bridge then there will be a significant reduction in walk distance between bus and NR / LU services through the provision of a new ticket hall and gateline.
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus ++ standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other.
Bus – Town Majority of passengers will be dropped off a -- Centre considerable distance from the Town Centre when compared with the existing layout.
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis -- portion but without retaining a variant of the existing feeder facility there will be a significant reduction in capacity
Enhanced setting for conservation area / Urban Realm Built Heritage + + Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green.
Trees Major impact on trees on Haven Green West --
Comprehensive public realm improvements Public realm + proposed including additional public space at station forecourt but greater severance due to widening of eastern side of Haven Green to access bus station.
Pedestrian Improvements to pedestrian movement ++ movement throughout the area, especially on the pedestrianised Station Broadway
Additional open space land gained from Open Space ++ removal of diagonal road across Haven Green. Environmental High impact during construction and the -- Amenity effects on noise, vibration, air quality during operation will increase around Haven Green due to the severe delays caused by the change in highway network. Adverse impact on the Madeley Road properties which back onto the proposed bus station and potential development overhead.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.20 OPTION 13 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Significant construction challenges, as -- outlined in the buildability assessment detailed above, which although they may not be insurmountable are likely to be very costly. Bus Operation Major increase in bus mileage due to longer -- routing required to access bus station and closure of both Station Broadway and Haven Green Diagonal. Offset to some extent by increase in bus stopping and standing capacity. Highway Major delays at the Spring Bridge Road / The -- Network Broadway junction through the introduction of two-way traffic. Major delays at the Spring Station Broadway / The Broadway junction through the introduction of two-way buses & taxis. Assuming the Haven Green diagonal is closed: drop-off traffic no longer able to use the diagonal so there would be an increase in flows through Town Centre from those wishing to head north. The removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction but this would be offset by the introduction of southbound traffic within the junction
Bus Station Significant increase in bus stopping / standing ++ Capacity capacity.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.21 OPTION 13 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Costs will exceed Option 7 with the addition -- of even greater land assembly costs would be high as part of the Arcadia Centre would be required in order to widen Spring Bridge Road as well assembling a number of properties on Haven Green east and Central Chambers. Widening of the bridge also likely to be costly, given technical specification required by Network Rail. Indicative appraisals suggest that even allowing for significant development above the bus station, the proposals are unlikely to be viable. Construction costs alone for over station development estimated at £47.5m - £8.43m, excluding land assembly costs.
Land Use Identified as development opportunity in UDP + Policy (Site 64) for over station development to east of Haven Green. Policy advocates station redevelopment and interchange improvement with possible over track development, including encouraging substantial office space. Potential impact on locally listed building (rail shed). Not clear that bus/rail/tube links would be more effective. Also adjacent to Conservation Area (Haven Green) and residential area to the north. It would be required that there is no net loss of green/open space at Haven Green as a result of the widening of Spring Bridge Road and Haven Green west plus consideration given impact on existing trees. Generally, this option is unlikely to accord with planning policy.
Risks High. Possible need for Compulsory Purchase -- Order to assemble land. Discussions with Network Rail and Crossrail would be needed and would add further risk. Concerns regarding possibility of increasing construction costs in relation to over station development. Very considerable uncertainty that the finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even through S106 or tariff based provisions. If development promoted above bus station deck, then scale of building could be very significant, and creating a major visual impact on Ealing’s
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall built form and skyline. Possible net loss of public open space would increase the risk further.
Property Loss Loss of 8 Spring Gardens and part of the -- Waterglade Centre as a result of Spring Bridge Road widening. Substantial costs would be attached to reconfiguring the Waterglade Shopping centre. Direct impact on 41 – 43 Haven Green and 7 and 8 Central Chambers plus Ealing Squash Courts which would need to be demolished. Also probable impact on 31 – 40 Haven Green (access/servicing route temporarily affected at the very least), and Ealing Broadway mainline station. If new ticket hall were included, then this would require the acquisition and reconfiguration of further properties fronting Haven Green (Nos. 44-49). Also costs attached to acquiring land for new bus connection from over station development to The Mall (no 21). If development above deck, then significant development height above the station could also have indirect impact on residential properties to the north, Villiers House and possibly those to the south fronting the Mall through rights to lights claims.
Acceptability LB Ealing Option opposed due to the high cost, risk and -- -- impact on highway network. Transport for The impact on bus mileage and operational -- London issues through insufficient capacity mean that this option will not be supported by TfL: London Buses The significant increase in network delay and congestion will not be supported by TfL: Traffic Directorate and Forward Planning Network Rail / This option will have a direct impact on the -- Crossrail Crossrail station works and is unlikely to be favoured by Network Rail / Crossrail. Private sector Likely to be resisted by affected parties, -- / Developers especially by the owners of the Arcadia Centre. Over station development - Indicative viability assessment (as per Option 5) indicates that redevelopment is not financially viable and therefore unlikely to find support from the private sector. Direct impact on The Arcadia Centre, site unlikely to
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall be redeveloped in isolation General public Although a mixed reaction likely and the -- scheme is supported by Save Ealing Centre, there is likely to be strong opposition from the residents of the Madeley Road properties which back on to the proposed bus station and any over station development and also more widely to the net loss of public open space that could occur along with the impact on existing trees at Haven Green likely to be unpopular.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 14
APPENDIX TABLE A.22 OPTION 14 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Broadly similar to the existing arrangement. Bus – Rail / LU + + Accessibility Some routes and therefore passengers benefit from more direct route to the station and reduced journey times
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus + standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other but northbound and southbound still severed by Haven Green east with no direct link between services
Bus – Town Broadly similar to the existing arrangement. 0 Centre
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis + portion with the existing feeder rank modified to increase capacity
Enhanced setting for conservation area / Urban Realm Built Heritage + + Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green. Trees Additional tree planting proposed ++
Public realm Comprehensive public realm improvements + proposed including additional public space at station forecourt Pedestrian Broadly similar pedestrian movements - movement maintained as per the existing arrangement although pedestrians are likely to experience greater delays and difficulty crossing the Spring Bridge Road / The Broadway and Spring Station Broadway / The Broadway junctions
Open Space Unaffected 0
Environmental Negative impact through congestion created - Amenity by two-way traffic through The Broadway / Station Broadway junction
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.23 OPTION 14 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Property demolition on western side of - Station Broadway required Bus Operation Reduction in bus mileage due to more direct -- routing for northbound buses on Station Broadway. Significant reduction in stop / stand capacity will require a complete bus network recast, otherwise this option will be unworkable due to lack of standing space
Highway Major delays at the Spring Station Broadway / -- Network The Broadway junction through the introduction of two-way buses & taxis. With Haven Green Diagonal closed drop-off traffic no longer able to use it so there would be an increase in flows through Town Centre from those wishing to head north The removal of diagonal is likely to reduce delays at the Castlebar Road junction
Bus Station Significant reduction in stop / stand capacity -- Capacity will require a complete bus network recast, otherwise this option will be unworkable due to lack of standing space. No scope for future demand and service growth
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.24 OPTION 14 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability High land assembly cost due to impact on -- properties to the west of Ealing Broadway Station. No clear prospect of cross funding through commercial development. Would require combination of external funding and S106/tariff based contributions.
Land Use Possibly some small net loss of green/open + Policy space at Haven Green plus removal of several existing trees (although this may be resolvable). Central Chambers forms part of the designated shopping frontage so there could potentially be change of use issues, but may be acceptable in light of creating a better interchange as promoted in the UDP policy for this area.
Risks High. Considerable uncertainty that the -- finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even through S106 or tariff provisions. Additional risk through potential need and implementation of Compulsory Purchase Order for a large number of property interests needed to facilitate proposal. Likely to be extended timescales to deliver this option.
Property Loss All properties at Central Chambers would be -- affected either directly (1-7) or indirectly (9 and 10). 40 -42 The Broadway would also be directly affected. This could lead to significant cost. Uncertain whether additional costs would be incurred through redevelopment over Network Rail lines and dealing with this party.
Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for The operational issues through insufficient -- London capacity mean that this option will not be supported by TfL: Buses The significant increase in network delay and congestion as a result of the additional movements required to turn Buses into Station Broadway and movements around the
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
bus station island mean that this option will not be supported by TfL: Traffic Directorate or Forward Planning
Network Rail / Unaffected 0 Crossrail Private sector Likely to be resisted by affected parties, -- / Developers particularly those with an interest in the properties located to the west of Ealing Broadway Station.
General public Opposition expected due to impact on - highway network and visual impact of bus station upon leaving Ealing Broadway station
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 15
APPENDIX TABLE A.25 OPTION 15 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Passengers approximately equidistant to Bus – Rail / LU - + Accessibility Ealing Broadway Station when compared with the existing situation; they will however have to cross in two stages to change mode.
All bus services currently stopping and Bus - Bus ++ standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other
Bus – Town All bus boarding and alighting points moved ++ Centre closer to Town Centre
No obvious way to accommodate taxi ranks, Taxis -- especially a more visible and accessible front portion as the forecourt will effectively lie within a signalised junction. Urban Realm Built Heritage Enhanced setting for conservation area / - -- Haven Green but loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green with route severed by bus interchange on the south side of Haven Green. Trees Massive impact on the trees around Haven -- Green due to requirement for carriageway widening on the eastern and western sides and a new east-west link across the south side. Moving the bus station and link road further south would reduce the impact on the southernmost trees but this would then reduce the available footprint for redevelopment. Public realm Public realm improvements achieved through -- the closure of The Broadway more than offset by the severance caused by the new carriageway network layout.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Pedestrian Although further severed by the increase in - movement traffic outside Ealing Broadway station, there are improvements to town centre accessibility and the pedestrian environment between following closure of The Broadway. Haven Green itself becomes completely severed and aside from a ‘bridge at the northern side becomes a virtual traffic island. North-south movements near the bus station would also be very difficult and slow due to the number of side roads and access points.
A 1,000m 2+ increase in net area of common Open Space ++ land is achievable through closure of the Haven Green Diagonal which is required to offset the carriageway widening and new east-west link across the south side of Haven Green.
Environmental Very high impact during construction. The -- Amenity impacts of noise, vibration, air quality during operation around Haven Green will increase due to be increased traffic congestion.
APPENDIX TABLE A.26 OPTION 15 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Lengthy Network Rail track possessions - required to demolish Central Chambers and BBC car park followed by construction of slab as a foundation for the proposed bus station Levels issues particularly when providing links to / from Spring Bridge Road and the higher bridge required after widening. Impact on statutory undertakers’ equipment due to carriageway widening requirements on Spring Bridge Road. Bus Operation Increased mileage for ‘Haven Green’ buses -- and also those previously unaffected on Uxbridge Road. Improved bus operation and reduction in bus mileage due to removal of current circuitous routing for several services. Removal of The Broadway stop is likely to increase pressure on bus station stops.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Highway Massive delays for all traffic due to longer -- Network routing through the area. Further delays and increased congestion through the more complex junctions at either end of the new east-west link road. Bus Station Insufficient kerbside capacity due the -- Capacity addition of Routes 83, 207, 427, 607 & E11 that will need to serve the bus station following the removal of the stops on The Broadway.
APPENDIX TABLE A.27 OPTION 15 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Construction costs are likely to be -- prohibitively high unless built as part of a redevelopment of the Arcadia site. Even then, developing over the Network Rail lines would be a very expensive proposition, and unlikely to be viable. Land Use Identified in UDP as forming part of a wider + Policy development site (Site 63). Allocated for range of uses including retail and residential. Proposal envisages that redeveloped site would secure interchange links, with reference to the possibility of a new bus station. Proposal would need to ensure no net loss of green/open space at Haven Green plus consideration given to existing trees and Conservation Area. Site lies within Archaeological Area of Interest. Risks High. Considerable uncertainty that the -- finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even through S106 or tariff based solutions. Additional risk through potential need and implementation of Compulsory Purchase Order for a large number of interests. Likely requirement to enter discussions with Network Rail (who may be challenging to deal with via a CPO), adding further complexity to delivery. Potential positive outcome from reduced bus flow around Haven Green. Likely long lead in delivery timescales.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Property Loss Loss of 8 Spring Gardens, all properties at -- Central Chambers (1-10) and part of the Arcadia Centre as a result of Spring Bridge Road widening. In all likelihood to Watergate Centre would need significant reconfiguring to achieve this option. Very substantial costs would be attached to the land assembly needed. Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for The impact on bus mileage and operational -- London issues through insufficient capacity mean that this option will not be supported by TfL Buses. The significant increase in network delay and congestion will not be supported by TfL: Traffic Directorate or Forward Planning. Network Rail / Potential opposition due to development over -- Crossrail rail tracks Private sector Likely to be resisted by affected parties, -- / Developers especially those promoting development at the Arcadia site. Loss of public open space at Haven Green likely to be unpopular. General public This option is unlikely to receive public -- support due to the negative impact on general traffic in the area, loss of public open space at Haven Green and potential scale and height of over site development required to make this option viable.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
OPTION 16
APPENDIX TABLE A.28 OPTION 16 APPRAISAL: USER EXPERIENCE
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall
Interchange & Bus – Rail / LU Even with the highest specification 0 0 Accessibility underground bus station, the user experience would be unpleasant when compared with the existing arrangement due to noise and poor air quality. Assuming it is possible to connect the proposed bus station with the main station via an underground pedestrian link then there will be some reduction in walk distance between different modes. It would however require the provision of a new ticket hall and gateline.
Bus - Bus Poor user experience (as explained above) 0 exacerbated if passengers subject to long waiting times within the bus station. All bus services currently stopping and standing around Haven Green amalgamated within close proximity of each other.
Bus – Town Majority of passengers will be dropped off in 0 Centre the town centre, albeit underground. Reduction in distance between bus services and town centre when compared with the existing arrangement.
Provision of more accessible / visible front Taxis ++ portion with existing feeder capacity maintained
Enhanced setting for conservation area / Urban Realm Built Heritage + + Haven Green but potential loss of historic diagonal route across Haven Green.
No impact on trees, additional planting Trees + possible.
Comprehensive public realm improvements Public realm + possible including additional public space at station forecourt. Provision of a new north- south link and bus station access ramp will however reduce the permeability of the town centre.
Pedestrian Improved access between Ealing Broadway 0 movement Station and the Town Centre due to closure of Station Broadway. This is however offset to
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall some extent by gr eater severance on The Broadway due to carriageway widening and provision of a new north-south link through the existing ‘Arcadia Site’ and also the access ramp to/from the bus station.
Potential to maximise increase in net space of Open Space ++ common land.
Environmental Very high impact during construction. The -- Amenity impacts of noise, vibration, air quality during operation around Haven Green will increase due to be increased traffic congestion.
APPENDIX TABLE A.29 OPTION 16 APPRAISAL: FEASIBILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Buildability Could only be built as part of the complete -- redevelopment of the Arcadia Site. Standard construction challenges and potentially high cost, however this could potentially be offset through over site development. Bus Significant increase in bus mileage due to -- Operations longer routing required to access bus station. Highway Major network delays for general traffic due -- Network to modification and additional movements required at The Broadway / High Street junction and provision of a new signalised junction east of Spring Bridge Road to accommodate two-way north-south traffic flows. Capacity Loss of one bus standing space, stop capacity - remains unchanged.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE A.30 OPTION 16 APPRAISAL: DELIVERABILITY
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall Affordability Construction costs are likely to be -- prohibitively high even if built as part of a redevelopment of the Arcadia site. The new bridge over the railway line could represent a significant cost. Very high land assembly costs and due to remodelling of highways.
Land Use Identified as development opportunity in UDP + Policy (Site 63). Policy advocates redevelopment for a range of uses including residential and retail, as well as transport interchange links, including possibly a new bus station. Site also lies within Archaeological Area of Interest. Proposal would need to ensure no net loss of green/open space at Haven Green.
Risks Very high. Considerable uncertainty that the -- finance required to facilitate the proposal could be secured, even as part of wholesale development of the Arcadia site. Additional risk through potential need and implementation of Compulsory Purchase Order for a large number of interests. Requirement to enter discussions with Network Rail adding further complexity to delivery. Potential positive outcome from reduced bus flow around Haven Green.
Property Loss Would be a direct impact all property assets -- bounded by The Broadway to the South, the railway Line to the north and Spring Bridge Road to the west. This area accommodates a very substantial number of leasehold and freehold interests – all of which would need to assembled to facilitate this option. No obvious justification that loss of property would be outweighed by the benefit of this proposal. Acceptability LB Ealing The Council believes that the significant -- -- costs, issues and risks presented along with the massing required do not make this option viable
Transport for The provision of an underground bus station -- London at Ealing Broadway would be contrary to current policy along with the significant impact on bus mileage and operational issues mean that this option is unlikely to be
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
Criterion Sub-criterion Commentary Score
Individual Overall supported by TfL Buses. The significant increase in network delay and congestion will not be supported by TfL: DTO or NAT. Network Rail / Assuming it is possible to connect the -- Crossrail proposed bus station with the main station via an underground pedestrian link then there will need to be a new ticket hall and gateline between the bus and rail station. This will have an impact on the Crossrail station works and is unlikely to be favoured by Network Rail / Crossrail.
Private sector Opposition likely unless implemented as part -- / Developers of (and could only be part of) a major Arcadia site redevelopment. General public This option is likely to receive a strong but -- mixed reaction from the general public. However due to the potential scale and height of over site development required to make this option viable and also the negative impact on general traffic in the area, we believe that overall the public will be opposed.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix A Interchange Study
APPENDIX
B
COST ESTIMATES
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix B Interchange Study
APPENDIX
C
PROPERTY COST ESTIMATE
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix C Interchange Study
C1 PROPERTY COST ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS
Property Cost Estimates C1.1 The following is a summary of the work undertaken by CB Richard Ellis to ascertain the property acquisition cost estimates required to facilitate Options 5 and 7 following implementation of a compulsory purchase order including compensation assessed in accordance with the, so called, Compensation Code. C1.2 This section sets out the background to, and basis of, compulsory purchase compensation before detailing the methodology and then assumptions made with market commentary and case specific assumptions. The overall Property Cost Estimate (PCE) is summarised at the end of this section.
C1.3 This PCE gives the likely acquisition costs, taking into account the assumptions set out, as at the date of the estimate – 8 April 2010. The actual date of assessment of compensation will, unless agreed otherwise, be the date of valuation which will be either:
I Date of agreement;
I Date of Vesting (following a General Vesting Declaration);
I The day of possession (if adopting the Notice to Treat and Notice of Entry procedure). C1.4 It is likely that due to additional information becoming available, property market fluctuations or other factors both property values and other compensation figures will have changed, perhaps significantly, by that date. Payment of compensation post the valuation date is subject to an additional amount for Statutory Interest which accumulates from the date of possession until compensation is paid.
Entitlement to Compensation C1.5 The owner of an interest in land which is acquired under compulsion is entitled to a claim for compensation assessed in accordance with what is known as the compensation code – effectively the rules and guidelines as set out in the various Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instruments and decided case law. Losses are assessed at the date of valuation which is the earlier of:
I The date of agreement; or
I Either Date of entry if acquired following Notice to Treat & Notice of Entry; or Date of vesting C1.6 When acquiring the totality of an interest there are 2 basic heads of claim:
I Value if interest in land; and In assessing the value of the interest acquired we value the interest in land assuming a ‘no scheme’ world – this means no regard is had to the scheme behind the CPO. This ensures that the owner of the interest receives the market value had the scheme not come about.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
140 Interchange Study
I Business disturbance (together with statutory loss payments and claimant's professional fees). This is probably best defined as all other costs and losses arising from the dispossession of an interest in land. There are, however some basic rules to follow in making assessments:
In general, only those who have been in occupation can be disturbed. Loss is compensatable provided that: It is a natural and reasonable consequence of the compulsory acquisition It is not too remote The claimant must act reasonably in order to try to mitigate his loss. C1.7 In general terms, all qualifying disturbance losses post implementation will be recoverable as will most costs incurred prior to implementation but after the Order was first published as a draft. Losses incurred prior to the publication of the CPO would normally be considered too remote to be compensatable. Costs in objecting to an Order are not recoverable.
Methodology & assumptions - Working Method I The PCE includes an estimate of value of each interest in land;
I Business disturbance compensation;
I Associated statutory loss payments; and
I Claimant's professional fees in negotiating C1.8 All assessed in accordance with the so called compensation code (as defined by the various Acts of Parliament, Statutory Instruments and decided Case law). This PCE represents a current, rather than a projected, view. Should the land acquisition figures be utilised in appraisals, allowances should be made to reflect possible changes to values over time from the date of this report. C1.9 Valuation of Property Interest - We have made our assessment based on the assumptions that those affected will receive compensation for their interests assessed in accordance with Section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. C1.10 To assess occupational and investment interests we have researched
I Rateable values - as relevant and as published by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA)
I Estimated Rental Values (ERVs);
I Evidence of recent market transactions and assumed, unless known otherwise, that;
I All buildings, and uses undertaken within them, have relevant planning consent and such other licences or regulatory approvals, as maybe required from time to time; and
I None of the sites is contaminated (see below).
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
141 Interchange Study
C1.11 We have made an assumption that the market value of a property lies principally within the freehold interest and that the occupational interest has a market value no more that the equivalent to one year’s ERV, unless specifically stated in the individual case comments. C1.12 This PCE includes an allowance for the reinvestment costs, including stamp duty, of investment owners who are not in occupation and therefore not generally entitled to compensation for disturbance. It has been assumed that the claimant would comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation in order to make this claim. It should be noted that the PCE does not include values for freeholds owned by Transport for London / London Underground Limited. C1.13 Ownership - A Land Registry search has not been undertaken and but ownership is based upon information provided by LB Ealing (via Steer Davies Gleave) and site observations. C1.14 Disturbance - Estimates of the disturbance element of claims are predominately based on experience of similar cases. The key elements of any business disturbance claim are:
I Temporary or partial permanent loss of profits;
I Relocation and move costs;
I Special adaptation/compensation for existing fixtures and fittings;
I Acquisition costs of new premises; and
I Any other reasonable costs incurred as a direct consequence of the acquisition. C1.15 No allowance has been made for disturbance compensation where the property is currently vacant. It should be noted that it is possible for units which are currently unoccupied to be sublet or subject to a lease assignment prior to possession being required. Accordingly, a liability to pay disturbance compensation to a new occupier could arise for which no allowance has been made within this estimate. Additionally, it is possible that individual occupiers may undertake works within the intervening period that could increase existing disturbance cost estimates. Estimates as to each element of disturbance are based on our experience and having regard to published data, as appropriate. C1.16 Contamination - Specific information to enable the calculation of deductions or allowances for remediation has not been available. It is possible that, once surveys have been completed, adjustments will need to be made. C1.17 Contact - No contact has been made with potential claimants. C1.18 Relocation vs Extinguishment - In preparing the PCE it is assumed that businesses will relocate to suitable alternative premises. It should be noted that:
I For qualifying claimants over 60 years of age the option is available for compensation to be assessed based on total extinguishment of the business. We have assumed that no claims will be pursued on this basis;
I There may be instances where a claimant (particularly those involved with motor trade) is unable to relocate, having made reasonable endeavours to do
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
142 Interchange Study
so. In such cases the disturbance compensation may increase to reflect loss of goodwill. Such figures are extremely difficult to estimate without sight of trading accounts. We have not carried out an assessment of relocation property and, as stated above, it is assumed that businesses will relocate C1.19 It is expected that some businesses will not be able to relocate and will, therefore, be extinguished. The claim on extinguishment is the sum of:
I The goodwill of the business – assessed either by a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuation or, more generally, by application of a multiplier of net profit; and
I The costs associated with closing the business, including losses on forced sale and redundancy (to statutory levels only). C1.20 Figures are extremely difficult to determine without sight of trading accounts and so, where relevant we have relied on our experience and those figures which have been published (see below). We have assumed relocation in every instance save that of the operating licensed premises which we have assumed will extinguish. C1.21 Statutory Payment: Loss payment - Allowance has been made for Basic and Occupier's Loss Payments as provided for by the Land Compensation Act 1973 (as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). C1.22 Statutory Payment: Statutory interest - A claimant is entitled to statutory interest on the outstanding balance of compensation from date valuation to date of payment. Statutory interest accrues daily, on a simple basis, at the statutory rate applying from time to time (effectively 0.5% below base rate). No allowance is provided in the figures in this report. Both interest rates and the time taken to settle compensation are likely to vary. Acquisition of the property interest by agreement or settlement of the claim prior to vesting or entry may reduce this liability but holding costs may counter any benefit gained. C1.23 Contingency - Until detailed discussions have taken place it should be recognised that there could be variation from the disturbance estimate given. As further information becomes available and, we would recommend, no less regularly than 6 monthly, the PCE should be reviewed. In the context of this a contingency may be provided for in the wider development appraisal but nothing is included in the figures provided in this report. C1.24 Inquiry & Land Tribunal Costs - No allowance has been made within this PCE for the costs of either a Public Inquiry or Lands Tribunal, if required. It is impossible to accurately determine the likely costs of an Inquiry or, indeed, if one is required – it maybe that objection(s) can be negotiated away. Similarly it is impossible to accurately determine firstly whether the case may be referred to the Lands Tribunal and, secondly the likely costs arising if a case were referred and heard. C1.25 Stamp Duty & Land Tax - It is anticipated that the London Borough of Ealing, as acquiring authority, will be exempt from SDLT when the acquisition made follows confirmation of the CPO – as a result no allowance has been made in this PCE. Two points should be noted:
I An SDLT will arise on the transfer from The London Borough of Ealing to a third party, such as a development partner. This is not reflected in this PCE
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
143 Interchange Study
I An SDLT liability will arise should an interest be acquired, by a third party, in advance of the use of powers. C1.26 VAT - We have assumed that VAT on property acquisitions will be a recoverable cost and there is, therefore, no allowance in these figures to account for any VAT that may be payable. C1.27 Other Rights - We have not made any allowance in respect of claims for loss of rights (including rights to light), party wall, crane over sailing or claims resulting from the construction and/or use of the development. Rights still need to be identified and further detailed referencing will be required so that, if any exist, they may be understood and valued accordingly
Market Commentary and Case Specific Comments 8.17 Market Commentary - It should be noted that:
I the downturn in market conditions means comparable transactions have largely dried up and we are therefore reliant, to a greater extent than previously, on valuations to support this estimate.
I the definition of market value requires a willing seller – those comparables that are available are could be of a distressed nature (forced sale) because, it could be argued, no one would make a sensible decision to sell unless they had to. Claimants may well argue that to compare their assets which, but for a CPO, would not be under pressure to be sold, with those that are distressed will produce a distorted (below market) value. C1.28 Comparables which have been had regard to include those given in Table D.1. C1.29 Values - Having undertaken research we have made our assessment on:
I Retail rental values - ERV’s have been assessed at 100% of Rateable Value, unless otherwise shown
I Retail and leisure yields – the market is soft at present, although appears to be improving We have adopted a yield of 7.5% unless otherwise stated
Application C1.30 The PCE is provided for the following Ealing Broadway bus station/interchange options:
I Option 5(i) – with bus access off Haven Green, with bus station on deck above District and Central lines
I Option 5(ii) – as above but with the requirement to acquire the former District Line ticket building (Nos. 41-48 Haven Green) as a whole as demolition of Nos. 41-43 may not be possible in isolation and the whole structure may need to be acquired and made safe prior to any works
I Option 7 – As per option 5(i), plus an egress route forged from the bus station deck linking to The Mall C1.31 Option-specific commentary and results of the PCE are presented as part of the appraisal alongside each option in the remainder of this chapter.
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
144 Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE C.1 PCE: MARKET VALUE COMPARISON
Date Address Price (£) Type Tenure Per Yield Unit (%)
Nov 60 The Mall, £30,000 pa Letting of Leasehold 2009 London, W5 retail unit
Nov 25 The £60,000 pa Letting of Leasehold 2009 Broadway, retail unit London, W5
Aug 11 The £43,550 pa Letting of Leasehold 2009 Broadway, retail unit London, W5
Jul 5 The Mall, £5,000 pa Letting of Leasehold 2008 London,W5 retail unit
Mar Carmelita £4,500,000 paid Investment Freehold 6.6% 2010 House, The for freehold. sale of Mall, London, £300,000 pa office W5 rent paid by premises. current tenant
Mar 4 Bravington £85,000 pa 15 year Leasehold 2009 Walk, lease of London, N1 leisure centre
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
145 Interchange Study
APPENDIX TABLE C.2 PROPERTY COST ESTIMATE (AS AT 8TH APRIL 2010)
Claimants Rateable Disturbance & Statutory Plot Address Address Loss of Solicitors Claimant Interest Value SDLT Relocation Loss Total No (No) (Street) Interest & Agent’s (2010) Costs Payments Fees
1 41-42 Haven Green Kerr Recruitment LH £24,500 £24,500 £- £185,000 £13,563 £22,500 £245,563
2 43 Haven Green Former Boots LH £26,750 £26,750 £- £50,000 £4,506 £8,000 £89,256
3 44 Haven Green La Baguette LH £16,750 £16,750 £- £75,000 £3,756 £8,000 £103,506
4 415 Haven Green Starbar LH £18,500 £18,500 £- £75,000 £3,888 £8,000 £105,388
5 45a Haven Green Ladbrokes LH £51,500 £51,500 £- £160,000 £6,363 £8,000 £225,863
6 46 Haven Green Caesars LH £26,750 £26,750 £- £195,000 £4,506 £8,000 £234,256
7 47 Haven Green Western Union LH £10,750 £10,750 £- £55,000 £3,306 £8,000 £77,056
8 48 Haven Green Polish Trade Centre LH £22,750 £22,750 £- £55,000 £4,206 £8,000 £89,956
9 49 Haven Green Laroash Kebab LH £15,750 £15,750 £- £50,000 £3,681 £8,000 £77,431
10 41 Haven Green Ealing Squash Courts FH £1,192,412 £- £- £100,000 £- £1,292,412
11 21 The Mall Docklock Ltd FH £4,500,00 £4,500,00 £- £252,000 £75,000 £50,000 £4,877,000
11 21 The Mall Ealing PCT LH £219,500 £219,500 £- £475,000 £63,413 £3,500 £761,413
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
146 Interchange Study
APPENDIX
D
TRAFFIC NETWORK FLOWS
U:\London\Projects\222\4\36\01\Outputs\Reports\EBIS_FINAL_v00.docx
Appendix D
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name Ealing Broadway
Document Title Interchange Study
Client Contract/Project No. -
SDG Project/Proposal No. 22243601
ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No. Date Details
Final_V00 13 August 2010 Final Issue
REVIEW
Originator Lee Deacon
Other Contributors Malcolm Hewines (CB Richard Ellis) Stephen Nice (Burns+Nice) Roger Farrow (Franklin & Andrews – Mott MacDonald)
Craig McFarlane (TfL: Interchange) Chris Whitehouse (Steer Davies Gleave)
Review by: Print Julie Bowerman
Sign
DISTRIBUTION
Client: Nick O’Donnell - Ealing Council
Tom Maclachlan – TfL Interchange Stuart Croucher - Crossrail
Steer Davies Gleave: Study Team
Control Sheet