Chair’s introduction

Travelling to central London from the north and south on public transport is no easy task. Inadequate transport links and overcrowding on bus, rail and Tube are endemic, particularly in south-east London. These transport problems serve to exacerbate high levels of deprivation in areas along the north-south corridor. It is clear that public transport improvements are sorely needed.

On 9 September, the London Assembly’s Transport Committee held a seminar, attended by over 100 people, to explore whether the proposed Cross River Tram scheme could deliver the connections and extra capacity the capital’s north-south commuters deserve. The Cross River Tram would run from Euston station to Waterloo, with branches to Camden and King’s Cross in the north and Peckham and Brixton in the south.

The Cross River Tram has a cost benefit ratio of 2:1. Not only would it improve transport links and reduce overcrowding, the increased investment and jobs would regenerate areas such as the Elephant and Castle, the Aylesbury Estate and North Peckham. It would allow people from these communities easier access to jobs in central and east London; currently the commute from these areas can be slow and tortuous. The Mayor has said that he believes making public transport more attractive is the way to reduce car use. A fast, efficient tram system could have this effect, reducing traffic congestion. This would also help in the fight against climate change and improve air quality, as trams are electric and produce no direct CO2 emissions or particulates. The Transport Committee heard the views of a diverse range of people and organisations at its seminar. Transport for London (TfL) set out the strategic context of the scheme, alongside the projected costs and benefits it could bring. The Cross River Partnership brings together four boroughs – Lambeth, Southwark, Westminster and the City – alongside private sector partners and is leading the campaign for the tram. The Committee has also heard from business groups, such as the Chancery Lane Association and Business Improvement Districts, which strongly support the proposals. Residents and councillors along the proposed route expressed strong support in the southern section, although concerns remain from residents of Somers Town in Camden who have localised concerns about the proposed route (Camden Council itself supports the scheme in principle).

TfL is currently developing the tram scheme, but at this stage there is no funding identified beyond the design phase, which is financed to 2010. Last year, TfL secured a £39 billion deal with the Treasury to fund London’s transport infrastructure to 2017, but this did not include the cost of the Cross River Tram. Despite this generous deal, TfL has a number of pressures on its budget at the current time: the Crossrail funding package totals £16 billion and assumes future funding from fares increases; and, following the recent announcement by the PPP Arbiter, it appears that there is a funding gap in relation to the costs of the Tube Lines contract for the period to 2017. The Committee also heard from transport academics and considered how the money for the scheme could be found, or how similar benefits could be obtained more cheaply. In this report we recommend that TfL examines the various funding options and alternatives in detail, in order to secure the important benefits that Cross River Tram would provide.

At this point the Cross River Tram’s future is in the hands of the Mayor of London, who chairs TfL. Recently the Mayor told the Assembly’s Budget Committee that he was “not intending to spend a lot more money on the Cross River Tram”, casting doubt on whether he and TfL are committed to building on the extensive preliminary work that has already been done. What is certain is that if this scheme were ultimately to be dropped the socio-economic, environmental and capacity problems would not go away – alternative solutions would have to be found.

The Committee will continue to review the case for the tram but makes the following recommendations to TfL at this stage:

• The Committee recommends that TfL explores all possible funding options for the Cross River Tram in order to come up with a funding package. The willingness of the business community to contribute to the scheme provides some much needed optimism; the opportunity to reduce the scheme’s potential public cost should not be squandered.

• The Committee recommends that TfL undertakes and publishes detailed analysis of alternatives to the Cross River Tram scheme, systematically comparing the different modal options to ensure the most appropriate solution to the problems along the north-south corridor is pursued.

• We recommend that TfL continues to work with representatives of affected communities to find solutions to local route issues in order that they do not jeopardise the progress of the scheme.

On behalf of the Transport Committee, I would like to thank our speakers: Richard De Cani, Cllr Paul Noblet, Simon Pitkeathley, Tass Magoratavo, Phillip Goodwin, Professor Stephen Glaister, Professor Peter White, Alistair Subba Row and Tim Bacon for sharing their expertise with us.

Valerie Shawcross CBE AM Chair of the Transport Committee

2

1. Introduction

1.1 This report is intended as a record of the proceedings of the London Assembly Transport Committee’s seminar on the Cross River Tram scheme, held on 9 September 2008. Over 100 people, including local councillors, residents, business representatives, transport professionals and policy makers, attended the seminar. The seminar aimed to examine the case and prospects for the Cross River Tram in light of the Mayor’s emerging transport priorities and the current financial pressures on Transport for London. 1.2 The Committee heard presentations from a variety of perspectives. The Head of Major Projects at Transport for London set out the strategic context of the Cross River Tram scheme. The Chair of the Cross River Partnership set out the case for the scheme. The Cross River Partnership, which has been leading the campaign for the tram, is an organisation comprising public and private bodies north and south of the river, including Westminster City Council, the City of London and the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth. The Committee heard from Camden and Holborn Business Improvement Districts, and the Chancery Lane Association to obtain the view of the business community, and from two academics to get expert analysis of potential alternative schemes and different ways of raising the funding. The Committee also heard from the London Borough of Croydon, where the Tramlink network has operated since 2000. Full speaker biographies can be found at appendix 1. 1.3 Summaries of the speakers’ presentations are included as sections 2 to 8 of this report, whilst section 9 seeks to provide an overview of the ensuing panel discussions and audience question and answer sessions. Section 10 draws together the Committee’s initial findings and makes recommendations to TfL in relation to how it should move forward.

The proposed scheme

1.4 A Cross River Transit scheme was first suggested in the mid-1990’s as a way to help address the poor transport links between the north and south banks of the River Thames. Originally suggested to connect the Waterloo to Euston corridor, the scheme that is currently proposed would cover 16km north-south across central London. A core route would run between Euston and Waterloo, with branches to Camden and King’s Cross in the north and Peckham and Brixton in the south (see page 4 for a map of the route). It is estimated that Cross River Tram would carry 9,500 people per hour per direction in peak periods with a maximum frequency of one tram in both directions every two minutes on the core Euston to Waterloo route. 1.5 In late 2001, a consultation exercise was undertaken with residents concerning the scheme proposals and also alternative modal options - articulated buses, trolley buses and trams. Support for the scheme was overwhelming with 92% of respondents in support and over 60% identifying a tram as the preferred modal option. 1.6 The key objectives as identified at the time were to: • improve the quality and reliability of public transport;

• encourage motorists to switch to public transport;

• reduce pollution and congestion;

• improve community connectivity to employment opportunities; and

• provide routes through regeneration areas and local centres.

3

1.7 Further consultation in late 2006/early 2007 confirmed public support for the scheme and TfL are now focusing on the identification of the preferred route and depot options prior to further public consultation, although this work is currently only funded until 2010. 1.8 In making the case for the Cross River Tram, TfL has emphasised the potential positive environmental and regeneration effects in addition to its potential to ease congestion. Reduced

congestion would result in reduced traffic-related air pollution and vehicular CO2 emissions. Additionally, the trams themselves are electrically powered and so do not contribute to poor air quality. TfL’s Transport 2025 document, published in 2006, also identified the Cross River Tram project as playing a key role in relieving congestion on other forms of transport, particularly the Underground. It has also been argued that tram schemes can encourage modal shift away from cars (Croydon Tramlink is thought to have resulted in 7,000 fewer car trips into and through Croydon each day). 1.9 The regeneration argument is centred on the fact that the route would link regeneration areas such as King's Cross, Elephant and Castle, Brixton and the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark to jobs in central London. It has been argued that there is evidence from the Croydon Tramlink to suggest that new tram routes can attract inward investment and jobs along the route; for example, a retail developer is making a major contribution to a new tram stop in central Croydon. 1.10 TfL’s current estimate of the total cost of the Cross River Tram would be approximately £1.3 billion. 1.11 TfL’s 2004 Business Plan, which set out its plans to 2009/10, allocated funds for research and design on the Cross River Tram scheme to 2010 and noted that funding for construction would be sought in future government spending reviews. £11.6 million was spent to October 2007 on engineering and design, transport modelling and consultations.1 Funding was not sought in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, which secured a funding settlement for TfL to 2017. Negotiations at that time were focused on obtaining the necessary funding to cover the effect of Metronet’s administration and proposals for Crossrail. 1.12 In response to previous questioning from Assembly Members, the Mayor has said that he will be reviewing the transport, economic and environmental implications of the Cross River Tram scheme before deciding how to move forward. He expects to reach a conclusion in the autumn as part of wider discussions about TfL’s Business Plan for 2009/10. On 4 September, the Mayor announced his fares package saying, “there will be tough choices around some unfunded transport projects, to be reviewed as part of TfL’s Business Plan published later this year”.2 At the Budget Committee’s meeting on 4 September 2008, the Mayor stated that he was “not intending to spend a lot more money on the Cross River Tram”.

1 Mayor’s Question Time, 14 November 2007, 2752/2007 2 Mayor’s press release, 4 September 2008 4

Cross River Tram route options

5

2. Cross River Tram: Strategic context

Richard De Cani, Director of Major Projects, Transport for London

2.1 Richard De Cani set out the strategic context for the development of London’s transport system and the potential role of the Cross River Tram. Transport for London’s 20-year planning document, Transport 2025 identifies a role for light rail in supporting regeneration and improving public transport capacity. Light rail schemes encompass tram schemes, as well as bus transit systems. The key factors in successfully delivering a light rail scheme are road space allocation, local support, value for money and affordability. 2.2 ‘Planning for a Better London’ sets out the Mayor’s priorities for the development of a new London Plan3. The themes are: • ensuring Londoners have access to the homes, services and opportunities they require;

• businesses must be able to grow and access the skilled workers and markets required;

• London’s environment must improve and its distinctive character and heritage protected; and

• Londoners should experience an improving quality of life and feel safe in their neighbourhoods.

The revised transport strategy, currently being developed will support these broad themes.

2.3 TfL projects that by 2026 the number of jobs in London will increase by 0.8 million, totalling 5.4 million. The population is forecast to increase by 1.2 million to 8.7 million in the same period. The projected patterns of population and employment growth are shown on the maps below:

Employment Change 20062006 t o 2026 (low)(low) Percentage Change

Wood Green

Rom ford HarrowHarrow

IlfordIlfIlf ord ord

UxbridgeUxbridge

Ealing

HounslowHounslow

KinKingston gst on BromleyBro m lle e y

Employment Growth Percentage Change Croydon Greater than 100% Growth 75 to 100% Growth Su t t o n Su t t o n 50 to 75% Growth 25 to 50% Growth Less than 25% Growth

Q:\06 TN P\02 TNP projects\13 MTS02\02 GIS\03 Employment\2026\20071123_2026low-2006-employment_V2 'This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (GLA)(100032379) (2007).

3 The London Plan is the Mayor’s spatial development strategy 6

The role of transport in supporting London’s growth

Po p u l at i o n Ch an ge 2006 t o 2026 (low) Per cen t age change

Wood Green

Romf ord ord Harrow

IlfordIlfordIlford

Uxbridge

Eal ingin g

Hounslow

Kingston Br om l e y

Croydon Population Growth Percentage Change SuttonSutton Greater than 80% Growth 40 to 80% Growth 20 to 40% Growth 10 to 20% Growth 5 to 10% Growth Less than 5% Growth

'This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material w ith the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crow n copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crow n copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (GLA)(100032379) (2007). Q:\06 TNP\02 TNP projects\13 MTS02\02 GIS\02 Population\2026\20080205_2026low-2006-population_V4 Economic growth

2.4 Transport can create better links between areas of population and employment growth, exploit economic productivity benefits by providing high capacity transport into and around central London and maximise inner city regeneration opportunities. It can also contribute towards managing the competing demands on the road network. Social inclusion

2.5 Good public transport can ensure essential services are accessible to the local community, offer improved physical accessibility, reduce the cost of travelling for key groups and improve safety and security in the public realm. Environment and use of resources

2.6 Public transport can help improve the urban environment by reducing CO2 levels. Transport accounts for around 20 per cent of all London’s CO2 emissions, around half of which are produced by cars, although freight is another significant factor. To meet the 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025 from 1990 levels, radical policies will be needed.

Future capacity increases

2.7 A number of funded schemes are in place to increase transport capacity over the next ten years: the £39 billion funding settlement negotiated by TfL with the Government provides funding for Crossrail, which will deliver a 10 per cent increase in the capacity of public transport network; the Public Private Partnership (PPP) line upgrades on the Waterloo and City, Jubilee, Victoria, Northern, Piccadilly, Metropolitan and District and Circle Lines, will increase Tube capacity by 25 per cent. The funding also covers Olympic projects and commitments to improving London Overground, the Docklands Light Railway, bus, walking and cycling projects. Separate from the TfL settlement, Network Rail’s £7 billion funding package will increase rail capacity by 25 per cent.

7

2.8 The maps below show the highest levels of crowding on the Tube, DLR and National Rail networks in London. They assume the high growth reference case scenario projected in TfL’s Transport 2025, taking into account future capacity increases from the PPP upgrades, Crossrail and National Rail improvements. The darker the colouring, the higher the level of crowding.

2.9 The potential role of the Cross River Tram in meeting the Mayor’s strategic objectives were set out. Transport 2025 identified the Cross River Tram as a way of providing new routes and capacity to support London’s growth. The Cross River Tram would also increase north-south capacity, with a 60 per cent increase in capacity over Waterloo Bridge. It would reduce crowding on the Tube, with a 4 per cent reduction in crowding on the Victoria Line between Euston and Victoria, 5 per cent on the Piccadilly Line between King’s Cross and Covent Garden, and 6 per cent on the Northern Line between Euston and Waterloo. The scheme would also support regeneration and improved social

8

inclusion as 216,000 residents within 1km of a tram stop live in areas of high deprivation and low transport accessibility. TfL’s analysis suggests that there is a need for further north-south capacity provision in the central London area. 2.10 TfL has identified other schemes that could increase capacity. For example, separating the operation of the Northern Line branches could provide 50 per cent additional capacity on each. The cost of this has not been estimated fully, but it would be less than the Cross River Tram. Other options could include bus service improvements and priority schemes along the same route, and rail improvements. 2.11 The Preliminary Business Case4 for the Cross River Tram quantifies the benefits of the scheme over

60 years in terms of journey time savings, reductions in crowding, road accidents and CO2 emissions, the impact on the highway and other traffic and the wider economic benefits. The capital cost of constructing the scheme is currently estimated at £1.3 billion and has a benefit cost ratio in excess of 2:1. The Cross River Tram is largely a street running tramway, unlike Tramlink in Croydon which uses large sections of disused railway, and would therefore have a lesser impact on traffic. Further work is required on traffic modelling and the effect of the tram on traffic flows, congestion and journey times. It is thought this could have a negative impact on the overall business case. 2.12 In terms of the future, TfL is now conducting further modelling and analysis to understand the forthcoming transport challenges. The Mayor is considering the future of a number of unfunded projects, including the Cross River Tram, and is expected to reach a conclusion in the autumn with the production of TfL’s 10-year Business Plan. The scheme and its alternatives will be considered as part of the revision of the Transport Strategy, as well as future potential schemes for implementation post 2017.

4 See Annex ii of TfL’s written submission at Appendix B of this report. 9

3. The Case for the Cross River Tram

Councillor Paul Noblet, Chair of the Cross River Partnership

3.1 Cllr Noblet set out the case for the Cross River Tram in terms of its transport, environment and economic benefits. The role of the Tram in relieving crowding on Euston to Waterloo routes and the Northern and Victoria lines was emphasised. The map below highlights areas of particular overcrowding:

3.2 In particular, the Tram would provide new transport routes from some highly deprived areas, currently only served by limited bus routes. The Aylesbury Estate only has one direct bus route into central London and journey times from Peckham into the centre could be halved. 3.3 The Tram could have a stimulating effect on economic development in the local area by altering the perception of the areas it serves, attracting new businesses and investment, increasing land values by 5–20 per cent and increasing the marketability of land for redevelopment or refurbishment. In particular, a number of small and cultural enterprises would be better served by public transport. Furthermore, there is strong support from the City and business due to the reduced journey times for commuters. The Cross River Partnership sees the Cross River Tram as a north-south version of Crossrail. 3.4 The Cross River Partnership supports the Tram because of its projected effects on increasing capacity and reducing congestion, improving accessibility and its role in stimulating regeneration and economic development. However, the Partnership believe that a financial assessment needs to be undertaken to identify funding arrangements to minimise the effects on TfL’s finances within the current spending allocation. Furthermore, the real cost of not proceeding with the scheme, for example the effect on station and underground upgrades should be carried out.

10

4. The business perspective

Simon Pitkeathley, Chief Executive of Camden Town Unlimited and Tass Mavrogordato, Chief Executive of Inholborn

4.1 Holborn is a commuter destination, with employees coming into London via the mainline station from outer London. Holborn is identified as an area of intensification and growth by the Central Activities Zone and in 2012 will host 17,000 media representatives for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Over the next four years growth in terms of hospitality, retail and various service industries is expected. 4.2 The current transport infrastructure is at maximum capacity, with over 30 million users of Holborn Tube station each year. Overcrowding in the station leads to closures at peak times and the gyratory system that carries all of the major bus routes is often at gridlock. The business community in the area would support a new and highly efficient transport mode for Holborn to make sure that the area can achieve its potential. 4.3 Camden Town Unlimited represents 300 businesses. Camden Town is known for its central retail activity, nightlife and music scene. Camden Town is thought to be London’s second biggest tourist attraction, particularly in terms of attracting young people. However, the commercial fringe is often not considered. The Tube station at Camden Town is starting to reach levels during weekdays that are experienced at weekends. As with Holborn, Camden Town’s Tube station is shut for a period of time on Sunday because it cannot cope. There is a growing creative and media sector companies around the town centre, housing companies such as Emap, Revlon, French Connection, Hugo Boss, MTV, APTN, and multiple media and creative industry agencies. It is apparent that the area is developing very fast. 4.4 Camden Town Unlimited is undertaking a major scheme of physical changes to the environment. Capacity will be increased around the High Street. However, the High Street links to the other assets in the area, such as Mornington Crescent, which has 5,000 working people a day going in and out of the area, and numbers are growing all the time. Mornington Crescent is a ten-minute walk from St Pancras, and a 15-minute walk from Euston and Warren Street. As a commercial area, it is a very desirable location because it is cheap compared to the West End. International transport links are good but the local transport links are creaking. 4.5 The £2 billion investment going into Kings Cross and £1 billion going into Euston alongside the work going on in Camden Town means the current problems are going to increase. Expected growth in jobs across London over the next ten to 20 years is likely to be in the creative and media sector and it is vital that improvements to transport links are made for employees as well as the local population.

11

5. Trams, Transport and Regeneration: The Croydon Experience

Phillip Goodwin, Director of Planning and Transportation, London Borough of Croydon

5.1 Phillip Goodwin highlighted the lengthy project development of the Tramlink scheme, which was originally conceived in the early 1980s but did not start operating until 2000. It is 16 miles long, currently carries 25 million passenger journeys a year, has reduced journey times and has resulted in 7000 fewer car journeys per day. Prior to Tramlink, central Croydon car parks were often completely full, but there is now spare capacity because of the modal switch the tram has facilitated. 5.2 The socially inclusive nature of Tramlink was emphasised, with a wide cross-section of the local population using it. It is fully accessible and has stimulated the local economy resulting in an increased number of Job Centre placements and fewer unemployed people. Furthermore, it has had a positive impact on property prices and improved staff productivity and retention. 5.3 These improvements have been brought about because Tramlink has raised the profile of Croydon. It has helped attract high profile inward investors, particularly in Croydon Town centre and raised the confidence of property developers, demonstrated through some speculative development and encouraging redevelopment projects. £3.5 billion has been procured by Croydon Council for regenerating the town centre. The highly deprived New Addington area has been significantly improved through reduced unemployment and social exclusion following the opening of Tramlink. 5.4 There are plans to further develop the network, with a new tram stop, being partly funded by developers for the new Centrale shopping centre. Extensions from Croydon Town centre to Crystal Palace, Sutton to Wimbledon, Streatham to Purley and Sutton to Tooting are planned. The takeover of Tramlink by TfL earlier this year promises further service improvements. 5.5 In conclusion, a number of key aspects were emphasised. The need for public support and long-term commitment was vital to ensuring the scheme did not drop off the radar. The role of the local authority was seen as critical as it has a vital role to play as the long term planning, highway and traffic authority. Furthermore, it has an important part to play in building public support, dealing with objections and facilitating political agreements. As a local champion, the authority can encourage development and inward investment. Although the Transport and Works Act should reduce the planning process, it can still take a long time to get the scheme up and running, and this is something those involved in any tram scheme should be aware of. Finally, the success of Tramlink as an urban transport solution and regeneration agent was stressed, as well as its impact on improving the image of the borough.

12

6. Funding capital infrastructure projects and alternative sources of finance

Professor Stephen Glaister, Imperial College

6.1 Professor Glaister highlighted three areas that had historically not been given enough consideration when examining transport funding options. Firstly, the constraints of having a fixed budget have not always been fully appreciated. The PPP Arbiter’s announcement on the costs for the second period of Tube Lines’ PPP contract will greatly and further increase the pressure on both the Government’s and TfL’s budgets. It was highlighted that if £1 billion was borrowed to fund the Cross River Tram, an interest rate of five per cent per annum would result in £140,000 of interest per day (plus the repayment of the principal borrowed), limiting the ability of TfL to fund other projects by that amount. 6.2 Different schemes need to be quantifiably assessed against each other to the extent that is possible, taking the costs and benefits into account. When examining the costs and benefits of a tram scheme, a road safety scheme, additional bus services or fares reductions, the different benefits and costs should be quantified and compared. Although TfL has improved its cost benefit appraisal, there is still work to be done to ensure that decisions are made on an even-handed basis, and the alternatives are fully examined and appraised. The technical alternatives for the Cross River Tram scheme need to be examined so that it is absolutely clear that the problem cannot be solved more cheaply with a bus based solution. Rubber tyres are cheaper, more flexible, can travel at greater speeds and can have a greater capacity if they have a clear right of way. One problem with the West London Tram was that this issue was never fully addressed. 6.3 Secondly, the difference between funding and financing needs to be made clearer to avoid misconceptions. Financing refers to who provides the money upfront, through borrowing and lending, whereas funding means who ultimately pays . For example, private finance initiatives may provide the cash for a scheme up front, but ultimately it is the tax or fare payer that funds this agreement. This is the case with the Tube PPP. Once the funding has been secured through a lump sum or cash flow, the financing needs to be secured. The funding of a scheme is the crucial part. The Croydon Tramlink may or may not have been a success in transport terms but as a private finance scheme it was not a success. The Mayor successfully transferred much of the risk to the private sector as had been envisaged in the original agreements. However, the private sector lost a lot of money on it, which will affect the private sector’s appetite for risk-bearing proposals in the future for tram schemes. 6.4 Thirdly, if London’s transport infrastructure needs are too great to be funded from within the present budget limitations the overall transport budget must be increased. There are a number of possibilities to do this: through central Government grant, an increase in fares and the use of local taxes and charges. All are stretched at the present time. Central Government grant is essentially just a gift from the national taxpayer; the Government has already earmarked around £5 billion for Crossrail. 6.5 A grant is not the same as permission to borrow. TfL has the permission to borrow up to £3 billion up to 2010, which is very useful but will of course have to be repaid. The repayment liability is another burden on the future cash flow. London operates very much under the control of the Treasury within the current constitution. 6.6 In terms of fare increases as a source of funding, a ten per cent rise in fares will increase revenue by approximately £100 million a year, providing £1–1.5 billion over 30 years. However, the funding package for Crossrail already assumes the availability of such funds. 6.7 So what other sources of income might be explored? One option would be for domestic taxpayers to pay more, through the GLA council tax precept. The burden on domestic taxpayers to fund transport infrastructure is in fact low by international standards, around £26 million per year. A business rate levy is another possible source. A two pence levy on the business rate will yield between £2-3 billion, 13

but this is already earmarked for Crossrail and under the current legislation this cannot be raised further. One option used in other international cities is local taxes, such as for telephone calls, sales or on bridge crossings. Taxes are itemised on bills and used to fund infrastructure. 6.8 TfL has previously explored the possibility of Tax Increment Financing and land value taxes. This would use land taxes to fund joint ventures, although it is not likely to be practical as land ownership is very fragmented across London. 6.9 London has an annual Gross Domestic Product of the order of £160 billion. If just one per cent of this could be “captured” in some way it would service £15 – 20 billion, which could be used to fund infrastructure. One solution which is inevitable in the long run is some form of London-wide road pricing. It remains the only viable option of funding infrastructure and reducing road congestion outside central London, and this will need to be examined carefully in the coming years.

14

7. Modal alternatives to trams

Professor Peter White, University of Westminster

7.1 Professor White emphasised the need to systematically compare different modal options to ensure the best use is made of limited funds. The main motive for providing a new transport mode is usually to improve the service to the existing public transport users. In the case of a new light rail system in particular, users tend to come initially from the local bus network. A new mode may also have greater capacity, be quicker or have lower operating costs. Encouraging modal shift, reducing congestion and stimulating regeneration may also be motivating factors. In France, a number of light rail systems have been combined with major urban renewal in city centres, thus improving the local physical environment. 7.2 Most of these potential benefits can be quantified in monetary terms, although this is more difficult with environmental and regeneration effects. To systematically assess the benefits of a particular scheme, it is important to distinguish between effects unique to a specific mode, such as an image effect, and effects that could be produced by a number of other modes. Bus services could be greatly improved by reallocating road space to increase speed and capacity. Off-vehicle ticketing, as used on the Croydon Tramlink and on articulated bus routes, can speed boarding times. The image effect of a tram can be more attractive to users, and may have a similar effect on the business community. There should be an attempt to try and quantify this, but it is vital that decision makers do not prejudge the outcome of a new scheme in favour of a particular mode, but rather examine each mode on its merits. In France, high quality busways for lower-density corridors in Rouen, Nantes and Paris have been marketed as part of the same urban transport network as light rail network. These have been funded in part by a local payroll tax on employers. 7.3 So what modal alternatives might there be to trams in London? One option is to further improve bus services, which have seen phenomenal growth in the last six years. Lengthening heavy rail trains and providing additional stops, dependent on peak capacity, is a consideration, particularly in South London. However, the current franchising system for train operating companies means they are likely to focus on longer distance commuting rather than short trips. Though enhancing peak capacity is expensive, it is likely to involve less public money than constructing a new light rail network. 7.4 An urban tramway consists of two or three section articulated cars, off vehicle ticketing, well- designed stops and segregated track or on-street priority. Could this be done without being electrically driven or running on steel wheels? In fact, this exists on routes across the capital at the moment, though it is not universally popular: the articulated bus. 7.5 Bus rapid transit is now developing quickly. In Brisbane, a peak hour flow of 15,000 people is handled with one busway in each direction, with a 12-second headway between buses. Stops are long enough for several buses to stand behind each other and there is a double-width overtaking lane. An example from the UK, though not on the same scale, is the North Kent Fastrack around Dartford and Gravesend. It is a purpose built busway with new vehicles and high quality information. There is evidence it has facilitated modal shift away from cars. These modes should be considered using exactly the same criteria as trams or light rail. The most important issue is the allocation of road space.

15

8. The consequences of not improving cross-river transport links

Tim Bacon, Managing Director, and Alistair Subba Row, Chairman, of the Chancery Lane Association

8.1 The Chancery Lane Association is a member of the Friends of the Tram group, which is a wide ranging organisation of large employers and organisations along the Cross River Tram corridor. Its aim is to make central London accessible, attractive and economically vibrant. 8.2 The Chancery Lane area, situated between the West End and the City is currently experiencing regeneration and diversification, as has happened in other ‘mid-town’ areas in cities such as New York and Tokyo. It is a major contributor to London’s GDP, and over the past ten years, a large number of new occupiers have moved into the area. There has been an increase of 100,000 new workers in newly built or substantially rejuvenated offices. Companies are moving to the Chancery Lane area from the South Bank, West End and the City. 35 per cent of the demand for office space has come from the West End, and 58 per cent from existing companies within the area. The resident and transient population has also increased in line with employment growth. This has increased the demand for shopping and leisure facilities, and for transport. However, there has been no related increase in transport provision, leaving the existing infrastructure under a great deal of strain. 8.3 Further intensification of the area is due to take place under the Mayor’s development plans, but unless transport is improved and businesses can expand, they will start to move away from the area. Holborn Station currently closes four or five times a day due to safety concerns caused by overcrowding and demand is forecast to increase by 24 per cent in ten years time, yet no upgrades are planned.

16

9. Summaries of debate

Route options

9.1 There was discussion regarding the level of public support for the scheme. Audience members from south London voiced their support for the scheme strongly on the grounds of improved transport links and regenerative opportunities. A number of councillors in south London boroughs, particularly Lambeth, noted that there was strong cross party support for the scheme. Concerns were raised by audience members regarding the proposed route through Somers Town in Camden, a location where some feel a tram could damage the character of the area, although the fact that there is, nonetheless, support for the scheme within Camden was pointed out. 9.2 During discussion around potential resolutions to these issues in order that the scheme might go forward. Richard De Cani said that TfL understood the concerns raised by residents north of the river and was working to address them. One solution could be to have a core route to Euston, without a branch going through Somers Town to Camden Town in the first phase of the project while local solutions are sought north of Euston. It was also argued that although there had been local opposition to the Croydon Tramlink in some areas this had dissipated after construction. 9.3 In any case, uncertainty about the route (in the case of Somers Town) or depot location (in Peckham) is causing some local opposition to the scheme, which highlights the importance of work to determine the detailed configuration of the scheme along the whole route.

Costs and funding

9.4 There was discussion around the overall costs of the scheme and how funding could be obtained. Richard De Cani acknowledged that there was a high capital cost associated with the scheme and that the challenge would be to make the scheme affordable by examining the range of funding options. The capital cost estimate is £1.3bn in outturn prices based on an opening year of 2018. Outturn costs are calculated using EC Harris construction inflation factors for years 2008/9 to 2010/11 and assume the same levels of inflation as Crossrail for remaining years. This figure is made up of £767m infrastructure costs including all construction and design/management costs; £194m vehicle costs for new trams; and £331m contingency. 9.5 A number of representatives from the business community said they would be prepared to contribute towards such a scheme, potentially through a business rate supplement. However, Professor Glaister argued that a voluntary arrangement would struggle to raise the required sums along the whole route and that any business levy would need to be statutory. 9.6 Capturing increases in the value of land along the route was discussed, particularly in relation to Southwark where the local authority owns the vast majority of the land along the section from Elephant and Castle to Peckham. It has been estimated that Southwark owned land could increase in value by some £200 million if Cross River Tram is implemented. Professor Glaister confirmed that increases in land values have been used in the past to fund transport infrastructure but cautioned that it would not yield funding up-front and would involve selling off the land in the future. He suggested that a tax on landowners on the grounds that their land would increase in value might be the most effective way of raising the large sums of money required. TfL’s own property assets across London could also be used to generate funds but there was doubt as to whether the capital that could be released would be comparable to the cost of the tram scheme. 9.7 Fares income could be used to fund the scheme, although it would need to come from Londonwide fares if it were to provide funding in advance. It was also noted that patronage on tram schemes often comes initially from bus passengers switching modes, so Cross River Tram would not necessarily raise significant extra fare revenue.

17

Alternatives to the scheme

9.8 A number of potential alternatives to the proposed scheme were looked at, both other schemes across London that might be implemented for similar sums of money and modal alternatives along the same route. Alternative schemes

9.9 It was noted that population and employment growth projected by TfL is largely concentrated in the Thames Gateway and outer London and suggested that priority should be given to schemes serving these areas. Richard De Cani observed that the Mayor’s ‘Planning for a Better London’ document had placed emphasis on employment opportunities in the suburbs. Several Committee members questioned what work TfL had done in terms of comparing the Cross River Tram scheme with alternative schemes that could be funded for the same capital cost. We were told that TfL are currently assessing a number of different schemes in the context of the Mayor’s emerging transport priorities; the Cross River Tram scheme is being considered alongside future improvements such as the PPP upgrades and a rail funding package. Such issues are due to be addressed by TfL in the Mayor’s revised Transport Strategy, although it was noted that there is currently no funding available for Cross River Tram. 9.10 The cost of not implementing the scheme was raised: regeneration opportunities of the tram could be lost, particularly around Peckham, Elephant and Castle and the Aylesbury Estate. Members of the business community pointed out that if businesses could not expand in the areas they currently inhabit they may be forced to relocate to areas with better transport links. The possibility that areas of low public transport accessibility would remain poorly served if Cross River Tram did not proceed was also discussed. Modal alternatives along the same route

9.11 Discussion around modal alternatives on the same route centred on the question of whether other modes would be able to provide the benefits that a tram scheme promises, including the level of accessibility, regeneration opportunities and the extent of journey time improvements. 9.12 Trams have a good reputation for being fully accessible, but Professor Stephen Glaister observed that it is not necessarily the vehicle that achieves this but the configuration of road-side infrastructure, such as the height of the kerb. It was emphasised that the primary issue in relation to potential modal alternatives is the allocation of road space. A bus-based system could be made to work as long as it had sufficient priority on the street, although fears were expressed that a large number of new buses could increase congestion along the route. Splitting the Northern Line

9.13 The potential for TfL to split the Northern Line was discussed. Participants were interested in whether such a change could provide similar transport and regenerative benefits as the Cross River Tram. Although there was strong support for splitting the line, it was suggested that it should happen in addition to Cross River Tram since the tram would provide transport connections to Peckham, which is not served by the Northern Line, and any additional capacity created by the split could quickly be taken up by hitherto suppressed demand. Though the Northern Line split could be brought about sooner than the Cross River Tram, both schemes could contribute to regeneration and help solve capacity and congestion problems in the long-term.

18

10. Conclusions and areas for further development

10.1 The Transport Committee heard a compelling case for the tram scheme. The cost of the scheme and options for funding were discussed, as well as a number of alternative or complementary approaches to improving transport links north and south from central London. 10.2 The tram has a cost benefit ratio of 2:1. There is a clear case for the improved transport links that the Cross River Tram provides. Overcrowding on north-south journeys on the Northern, Piccadilly and Victoria Lines, buses and rail, particularly in south London, make for uncomfortable and difficult travelling conditions for passengers. The regeneration opportunities the tram provides in some of the most deprived areas in London would be very welcome, bringing new jobs and investment to these areas. Furthermore, businesses, particularly in central London, have highlighted the problems their employees face in getting to work and the difficulties they face in expanding in the face of insufficient transport provision. 10.3 The cost of the tram is £1.3 billion and Transport for London’s finances are stretched by the costs of Crossrail and the PPP upgrades. To date, it has been assumed that funding for the tram would be sought from the Government through a grant, although it is possible that current economic conditions may make this less likely. Professor Stephen Glaister set out a number of options to fund transport infrastructure. If the money were to be borrowed, the interest paid each year would be around £50 million. A ten per cent fare increase could provide the funding over 30 years, although fare increases have already been assumed to pay for Crossrail. Other options include raising funds through the precept, or a levy on businesses along the route. The business community signalled to the Committee that they would be willing to help fund the project, because of the clear benefits the scheme would provide to them. 10.4 The Committee recommends that TfL explores all possible funding options for the Cross River Tram in order to come up with a funding package. The willingness of the business community to contribute to the scheme provides some much needed optimism; the opportunity to reduce the scheme’s potential public cost should not be squandered. 10.5 The Committee also heard that it might be possible to augment or replicate the benefits of the tram through improvements to other modes. For example, it might be possible for a bus-based solution to achieve significant benefits at a lower cost than a tram scheme as long as the same capacity and road space allocation were made available. Professor White set out the need for alternatives to be systematically explored on an even-handed basis. The Committee recommends that TfL undertakes and publishes detailed analysis of alternatives to the Cross River Tram scheme, systematically comparing the different modal options to ensure the most appropriate solution to the problems along the north-south corridor is pursued. 10.6 Local routing issues remain, particularly at Somers Town, and are resulting in opposition to the scheme in areas that are set to benefit from it. We recommend that TfL continues to work with representatives of affected communities to find solutions to local route issues in order that they do not jeopardise the progress of the scheme. 10.7 The Committee believes the benefits offered by the tram, in terms of improving transport links, relieving overcrowding and regenerating some of the most deprived areas in London, are vital for the capital. We urge the Mayor and TfL to ensure every option is explored to find a workable solution to the problems faced on an everyday basis by residents, employees and businesses along this crowded corridor.

19

Appendix A

Speaker Biographies

Richard De Cani Director of Major Projects, Transport for London

Richard’s role includes responsibility for the Cross River Tram project. He started this post in July 2008 and prior to this was the Head of Development & Planning for Docklands Light Railway where he worked for 9 years and was responsible for the planning of the DLR network including recent extensions to London City Airport, Woolwich Arsenal and Stratford International. Richard is a Chartered Town Planner and Transport Planner and lives in London.

Councillor Paul Noblet

Paul has been a Liberal Democrat councillor in Southwark since 2006. He chaired Rotherhithe Community Council between May 2006 and August 2007 before taking on the role of Executive Member for Environment and Transport. In February 2008 Paul became Executive Member for Regeneration and Economic Development.

In addition to his work on the council, Paul is a primary school governor in Rotherhithe and a member of the Creation Trust board (the successor organisation to the Aylesbury New Deal for Communities).

Paul moved to Southwark in 1999 whilst studying at King’s College London, and has previously worked in communications roles for the Liberal Democrats and the regional development agencies.

Simon Pitkeathley Chief Executive, Camden Town Unlimited

Simon began his career in 1982 working within the music industry, in and around the Camden area, fuelling his subsequent interest to celebrate and improve the area. He worked for ten years as an artist, manager and producer and ran large scale live events; also working in video and film production. His next project was as Managing Director and a trained practictioner running a niche consultancy called Management Motivation Ltd which was based on a unique behavioural model with clients such as department for Work and Pensions. He is a company director to this day.

From 1995 to 1999, Simon worked for the Labour Party firstly as Millbank Media Centre Manager responsible to Peter Mandelson and running media relations and commercial interests for the 1997 General Election. In 1997 he was Head of Commercial Marketing following the 1997 victory. From 1999 until 2003 he joined the British Bankers’ Association, alongside 3 executive directors, and was responsible for the strategic direction and management of the Association as a whole.

For the last 5 years he has acted as a consultant both Public Relations and Business Development for Citigroup, Banking Code Standards Board, Zurich Financial Services and MobileATM. Simon is also a Political and Business Consultant & Interim manager retained by IPPR and JP Morgan.

20

Tass Mavrogordato Chief Executive, Inholborn

As a leader of change initiatives, Tass has a history of making a difference through establishing accountability and achieving measurable results. Working within regeneration and the creative industries, Tass has a track record of fundraising, working in partnership, and initiating collaborations for added value. This includes working in and across the private, public, and not-for- profit sectors to enhance performance and growth - restructuring departments and building sustainable profiles and networks.

Employment: 2007 Chief Executive Inholborn Business Improvement District 2005 Director of Contemporary Applied Arts (CAA) 2004 Director of Business Development, the Crafts Council 2002-04 Research Professor, Faculty of Design, University for the Creative Arts, South East

Phillip Goodwin Director of Planning and Transportation, Croydon Council

In 2007, Croydon’s Planning and Transportation Department received the highest Planning Delivery Grant in the UK for its delivery of planning services. Prior to being appointed Director, Phillip was Assistant Director Forward Planning and Special projects with Croydon, where amongst the many projects he worked on was Tramlink. Key Projects at the moment include implementing Croydon’s Vision 2020, the development of the Gateway site with the new London Arena, the redevelopment of Cane Hill where the Council has ambitions for a new Science and Technology Park and the implementation of the Minerva/Park Place retail scheme.

Stephen Glaister CBE FICE FTRF FCGI Professor of Transport and Infrastructure at Imperial College London.

From October 2008 Stephen will become Director of the RAC Foundation. He was a member of the Board of Transport for London 2000 to 2008 and he was a non-executive director of London Regional Transport from 1984 until 1993.

He was a member of the Steering Group for the Department for Transport’s 2004 National Road Pricing Feasibility Study and is a member of the “Friends” group advising Sir Rod Eddington on his Transport Study. This group continues as the Department for Transport works to implement Eddington.

Between 1993 and spring 2001 he was an economic advisor to the Rail Regulator. He was a member of the Government's first Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and he has been Specialist Advisor to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport and an advisor to the Commission for Integrated Transport. He has published widely on transport policy and also on regulation in the telecommunications, water and gas industries. He is the principal author of a series of three recent studies into national road pricing for the Independent Transport Commission and a co-author of the RAC Foundation study on road investment and pricing strategy for the next 35 years.

21

Peter White Professor of Public Transport Systems at the University of Westminster

Peter White is responsible for postgraduate teaching and research in bus, coach and rail systems. He is the author of the textbook ‘Public Transport: its Planning, Management and Operation’ (first edition 1976, fifth published on 9 September 2008), and many published papers, including a report on bus use in the metropolitan areas for the Passenger Transport Executive Group in April 2008. He is also author of a chapter on transport policy in London in the forthcoming book ‘Traffic Jam: Ten years of ‘sustainable’ transport in the UK’, to be published by Policy Press in the autumn.

His research in recent years has focussed on the effects of privatisation and deregulation in the coach and local bus industries, followed by the impacts of rail privatisation in Britain. He has acted as specialist adviser to Parliamentary committees in respect of the rail industry, rural bus services, the bus industry and education transport. He has a particular interest in quality of service factors affecting public transport demand in addition to well-established variables such as fares and service frequency.

Tim Bacon Managing Director of Colville Estate Limited

Colville Estate Limited is a privately owned property investment company whose principal asset is a number of office buildings in Chancery Lane and adjacent streets. The property has been in the ownership of the Bacon family for over 400 years. He set up the Chancery Lane Association in 2004 and acts as MD of that organisation. For the past 10 years he has been a Trustee of St Dunstan’s, the national charity for blinded ex-service men and women. Prior to becoming MD of Colville Estate he was a merchant banker, specialising in corporate finance.

Alistair Subba Row Managing Partner of Farebrother

Alistair has extensive experience of Central London commercial property acquisitions and disposals, specialising in the Midtown market. He provides strategic advice to key institutions, corporations, occupiers and property companies.

His institutional fund clients include Standard Life, Invista, Scottish Widows and PRUPIM and he is property advisor to The Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London. He provided strategic acquisition, disposal and relocation advice to legal and accountancy sector clients such as Lewis Silkin, Horwath Clark Whitehill, haysmacintyre, Saffrey Champness and Farrer & Co. His most recent development work includes Telereal's High Holborn Telephone Exchange, 110 Fetter Lane and PPG's Plumtree Court and I Kingsway.

Alistair started his career at De Groot Collis before joining Farebrother in 1986. He was a board member of The Circle Initiative, a public/private initiative set up by the Central London Partnership and the London Development Agency to deliver Business Improvement Districts (BIDS) within central London. He is also a former chairman of The Holborn Partnership, a successful BID, Chairman of the Chancery Lane Association and a Director of the Midtown Business Club.

22

Appendix B

Written Submissions

Transport for London submission

1. Introduction

1.1 This paper is intended to provide a general briefing for the GLA Transport Committee Seminar on 9th September 2008 about the Cross River Tram (CRT) project.

2. Background

2.1 In the 1990s the Cross River Partnership (CRP) was formed to support the regeneration of areas located close to central London. The Partnership identified improved transport links across the River Thames as a key part of their strategy for linking jobs and cultural institutions on either bank of the river with the nearby deprived parts of South London. London Transport (now Transport for London (TfL)) was part of this partnership and identified the potential for a new light rail link across central London to help meet these objectives at lower cost than construction of a new Underground line. The CRP and TfL have since collaborated on the project to deliver both the regeneration and transport potential of the project. A list of current CRP members and key CRP resolutions is shown in Appendix A.

2.2 CRP established a Tram Board in 2003, which is comprised of politicians of all three main parties from the affected boroughs, to provide political leadership and support TfL’s work on the project.

2.3 The Partnership comprises major local businesses and the City of London, Westminster City Council, and the London Boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth. LB Camden is not a full CRP member, but is within the scope of the Cross River Tram project, and therefore sits on the CRP’s Tram Board.

2.4 Following high level studies undertaken by TfL on a preliminary assessment of likely transport impacts and borough input regarding regeneration potential, the CRP Tram Board endorsed the proposal for the link to be a tram system, and that it should run from King’s Cross and Camden Town in the north to Brixton and Peckham in the south.

3. The Project

3.1 CRT is a new 16.5 km tramway with a core alignment from Euston to Waterloo and potential branches to King’s Cross, Camden Town, Peckham and Brixton (see Appendix B). Maximum frequency in the central core between Euston and Waterloo would be a tram every 2 minutes in each direction. The route could include up to 30 stops depending on final route option with a potential capacity of 9,500 passengers per hour per direction.

3.2 TfL’s T2025 analysis identified new transport capacity/routes needed to support London’s growth. CRT is part of the Full T2025 Programme and it is set out that CRT will work with the local public transport network to boost north-south capacity in central London, provide crowding relief and serve large regeneration areas.

3.3 CRT has two principal roles to fulfil which are to firstly, support regeneration in the most deprived parts of inner south London and secondly, to provide increased transport capacity particularly

23

between Waterloo and Euston to relieve LU crowding. These roles are also reflected in the scheme objectives and vision statement

3.4 During the past five years TfL has been developing the case for the CRT scheme. This has included consideration of route options and other alignment issues; undertaking public and stakeholder consultation and considering the potential impacts of the scheme.

3.5 Public consultation was undertaken in winter 2006/7 to establish the level of support for the tram scheme. Of the 1,596 questionnaires received, 77% gave positive views. CRT also enjoys strong support across the political spectrum in local boroughs. A number of local institutions and business communities along the route have also expressed their support for the scheme through CRP's 'Friends of the Tram'.

3.6 The route of the tram is largely defined in the central area, running from Euston through Bloomsbury, Kingsway and over Waterloo Bridge to Waterloo station. Route options remain on the branches, with potential alternative routes to King's Cross, Peckham and Brixton, as well as alternative terminus arrangements. Technical assessment of the route options has led to the identification of a ‘technically preferred’ single option scheme. Further discussion with key stakeholders, in particular the affected boroughs would be beneficial before a preferred option is put to the Mayor and TfL Board for endorsement.

4. Scheme Benefits

4.1 One of the key drivers of the project is the regeneration ambitions of the partner boroughs. The local boroughs and CRP see the CRT scheme as having a positive impact on regeneration by improving access between areas along the route outside the central area with Central London through reduced journey times but also providing a catalyst for inward investment.

4.2 In terms of transport benefits the full CRT scheme is currently estimated to lead to a significant reduction in public transport journey times along the route.

4.3 Within the Central area the scheme would help reduce crowding on the Underground network, particularly the Northern Line between Waterloo and Euston; Victoria Line between Kings Cross and Victoria and Piccadilly Line between Kings Cross and Holborn. Interchange will also be improved with main line terminals at Waterloo and Euston/Kings Cross.

5. Potential Impacts

5.1 With any scheme of this scale there will be a large number of potential impacts that need to be considered. For a street running tram scheme one of the most significant potential detrimental impacts is the displacement of existing traffic on the tram route and on busy roads crossing the tram route. Both can result in significant increases in network wide traffic congestion. The impacts are considerably greater than on tram routes built largely on old railway lines as in Croydon.

5.2 Sections of the route where significant restriction on private traffic is under consideration are London Road, Waterloo Bridge, Bloomsbury, Eversholt Street and Camden High Street. In these locations consideration is being given to whether access for private through traffic should be retained, displaced to other roads, or retained in one direction only. Overall road traffic capacity on these and other sections of the route and associated junctions will be reduced and lead to additional congestion and delays across the network.

5.3 The suite of modelling tools used to assess these impacts and the development of traffic management measures both on and off the route is being refined and updated. Specific traffic

24

management measures on and around the corridor depend on the priority given to the tram and traffic arrangements on the route itself, so detailed work would follow.

5.4 At this stage the impacts of the scheme on traffic flow and congestion are high level and need further refinement. Further work to assess and quantify these effects would need to be undertaken before any conclusions could be drawn on the overall costs and benefits and business case.

5.5 CRT would provide a public transport service serving the same route as a number of bus routes. Changes to bus routes aimed at improving the public transport service are being discussed. In some cases CRT enables a bus service to be wholly replaced. More often it enables existing bus routes to be redirected to improve public transport accessibility by serving adjoining areas. It will also be possible for existing bus services to be modified to better act as feeder and distributor services for CRT.

5.6 CRT passes through some sensitive environments, including (but not limited to) Waterloo Bridge, Aldwych, Bloomsbury and St George’s Circus. The insertion of the tramway would have a temporary construction impact on these and other locations and the prospect of permanent tram infrastructure may give rise to objections. It is therefore very important that the design seeks to minimise infrastructure in sensitive areas, fits into its environment, and brings with it improvements to the overall urban realm.

5.7 The scheme is largely on-highway and therefore has little property impact overall. However some property acquisition is necessary in some areas to provide an alignment, and land and property would be required to provide sufficient depot facilities for the scheme.

6. Alternatives

6.1 In taking forward any transport scheme it is important to consider possible alternatives that could meet some or all of the objectives and be delivered at lower cost with less impact. In the case of CRT, a number of alternative options could be capable of delivering some of the benefits and at lower cost and with less impact on traffic flow.

6.2 This includes the potential separation of the two Northern line branches (Charing Cross and Bank), which would provide more capacity in the central area and reduce crowding. This scheme has come to light since planning on CRT started and would deliver major capacity benefits on the Northern line, up to 50% additional capacity on each branch. The cost of delivering this and associated business case has yet to be estimated in any detail but is expected to be considerably lower than the cost of the CRT scheme. In addition, this scheme would not cause traffic disruption or congestion. Bus priority schemes could also improve journey times along the route. In progressing any further work on CRT it is important that these and other alternative options are fully considered.

7. Costs and Business Case

7.1 The capital cost of the project is currently estimated at £1.3bn taking into account inflation. CRT’s Preliminary Business Case was updated in July 2008 based on current assumptions about costs and benefits, which identified a business case for the scheme in excess of 2:1. Further work is required to update the business case to take into account the detailed traffic effects of the scheme but also any changes to benefits. Some of the key traffic effects are not yet known and these could have a negative impact on the overall business case for the scheme. More details of the Business Case are included in Appendix C.

25

TfL Annex i

Current CRP Members

The Partnership now comprises the following organisations:

• Better Bankside • Business Link London

• City of London • Groundwork London

• Learning and Skills Council • London Borough of Lambeth

• London Borough of Southwark • Network Rail

• Port of London Authority • South Bank Employers’ Group

• InHolborn • Transport for London

• Visit London • Westminster City Council

The London Development Agency holds observer status on the CRP board; the London Borough of Camden is a member of the Cross River Tram (CRT) Board and Officer Groups, and is involved in a growing number of Partnership projects and activities. GLA officers will continue to be involved in formulating the future direction of the Partnership and its Business Plan.

TfL Annex ii

Cross River Tram Business Case Briefing Paper

1.1 This paper has been requested by the GLA Transport Committee to provide a specific briefing about the Business Case for the Cross River Tram project. 1.2 Any Transport Business Case identifies and groups the various socio-economic costs and benefits over the lifetime of a scheme which will arise directly from the implementation of the scheme. 1.3 The principal benefits arise from passenger journey time savings and reduced crowding to users on trains and stations both on the scheme itself and on other transport modes. Journey time savings take into account reductions in time spent travelling on various modes of transport themselves (the In Vehicle Time) and also include the walk time to and from public transport stops and stations and the time customers spend waiting for services. 1.4 Additional benefits may also be derived from reduction in road traffic accidents and a reduction in

CO2 emissions. 1.5 In addition to the main transport appraisal items, a Business Case for a scheme like CRT also needs to consider the Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) to the economy as a whole; these are largely driven by the reduced travel times which facilitate an increased concentration of high productivity employment, delivering benefits to the economy which are above and beyond the economic gains associated with pure travel time savings. 1.6 Against the benefits however must be weighed the scheme costs and any ‘disbenefits’ which are caused by the scheme. The costs include the direct costs of construction and the ongoing costs of operations and maintenance of the system and, especially over 60 years, future allowances made to renew the infrastructure and vehicles as these fall due. 26

1.7 The ‘disbenefits’ of a tram scheme may arise for example, because in choosing to give priority to roadspace for trams, delays may be caused to the journeys of other road users. In the case of CRT the scheme passes through dense and already congested parts of Central and Inner London and will lead to some fundamental changes to the capacity of the road network which will impact on other road users. The extent of the increase in traffic flows on adjoining routes, consequences for traffic crossing the tram route and increases in congestion/delays at junctions over the wider network have not been fully quantified in the business case. Further work is required to fully assess and quantify these impacts and to identify where other measures could be introduced to mitigate the harmful effects. These mitigation measures would also have a cost which would need to be allowed for in the business case. 1.8 A 60 year period of the project life is considered and the appraisal is made in the context of the population and land use changes expected during that period. That is to say that the impact of the scheme is not considered using population and employment numbers from 2008 and the transport network currently available, or its level and pattern of use today, but using the numbers and distribution of residents and jobs and the transport network as it is expected to be during the time the scheme is in operation. These future projections are the result of forecasting from TfL’s established suite of modelling tools. 1.9 The future scenario also reflects planned and funded improvements to the London Underground and delivery of Crossrail and Thameslink Programme and funded highway schemes. 1.10 Costs and benefits are converted into sums of money in present value (PV) terms and compared to produce an overall ‘Benefit to Cost Ratio’ (BCR). 1.11 The core transport benefits for CRT are derived from journey time savings for existing public transport users and reduced congestion for existing public transport users using other parts of the network 1.12 Based on the current assumptions about on street priority, the Cross River Tram is forecast to carry over 70,000 passengers in the 3-hour weekday morning peak in 2019. The highest volume of usage is within the central section (50% of the total CRT users), between Waterloo and Euston. 1.13 The costs associated with the scheme are also considered in the Business Case. This includes the cost of constructing CRT and also operating and maintaining the system (including where necessary the replacement of life-expired equipment), are assessed over a 60 year period. 1.14 In assessing the overall net costs of the project over the 60 year appraisal period the Business Case considers other costs such as the impact of the tram on existing road users. Along many parts of the route existing road users will be affected and journey times will potentially increase. This generates costs to existing users in terms of delay and added congestion. A preliminary assessment has been made of these costs and further work is needed to quantify the full extent of the cost of displaced traffic. 1.15 Whilst the benefit calculations for CRT include the regeneration benefits for London resulting from the operation of the new tram, the appraisal does not include any enhancements to the public realm nor the value of any property enhancements as a result of CRT 1.16 The current BCR for CRT is in excess of 2:1 but subject to further review when a more detailed assessment of the potential costs including, traffic impacts as well as the wider benefits is available.

27

Cross River Partnership submission

1. Summary

1.1 Cross River Tram is an efficient and effective method of addressing the issues facing central London. It will: • Relieve pressure on the Northern, Victoria & Piccadilly Lines and their Underground stations.

• Stimulate regeneration and provide access to employment and training in some of the most deprived areas of England.

• Provide a fully accessible transport mode through the heart of London.

1.2 We recommend to the Committee and Mayor that Cross River Tram is of great importance to the economic, social and environmental well-being of London. 1.3 If it was not to proceed, we believe the costs to both the economy and communities that will benefit from the scheme would greatly exceed the cost of implementation. 1.4 We recommend that, in conjunction with the ongoing technical scheme development, a financial assessment is undertaken to: • Identify alternative funding arrangements, which will minimise the impacts on Transport for London’s finances within the current comprehensive spending review allocation.

• Identify the real cost of not proceeding with the scheme e.g., implications for station and underground upgrades.

1.5 On behalf of the Cross River Partnership authorities, we offer our full support and assistance with these investigations.

2. The Case for Cross River Tram

2.1 Cross River Tram will be a world-class tram service delivering safe, reliable and efficient journeys, enhancing London’s economy, environment and social inclusion. CRT will support regeneration and improve public transport capacity. 2.2 CRT was developed as a response to the increasing transport congestion in central London and to assist with regeneration of deprived areas along the route. As a cross-borough non-partisan scheme, it is well supported by the whole community. 2.3 Cross River tram will offer a fast, clean, street level connection between Camden and King’s Cross/ St Pancras in the north and Brixton & Peckham in the south and will run through the heart of the city, linking major tourism and shopping areas along with education and health institutions. 2.4 Cross River Tram benefits: • Carry over 90 million passengers a year.

• Connect with 10 Underground lines and four overground stations including the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras

• Run every two minutes between Euston and Waterloo.

• Relieve pressure on the Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly lines, making travel more pleasant for commuters, visitors and residents.

28

• Stimulate regeneration in some of the most deprived areas in England and enhance the employment and educational opportunities of 300,000 residents living along the route.

• Provide 30 new fully accessible stops along the corridor, compared to only four stops which are currently step free.

• Provide a new, fast and frequent tourist spine for central London connecting world renowned attractions including the British Library, British Museum, London Eye and the Imperial War Museum.

• Provide access to the jobs in central London from the areas of deprivation in inner south London.

3. Addressing congestion

3.1 By 2025, Rail and tube crowding is projected to increase by 37% with no planned increases in capacity. • Inner London north-south corridor congestion and crowded links mean the transport network is running at, or beyond, capacity in key areas.

• National Rail services from outer London and beyond is projected to add 30-40% more passengers to Euston and Waterloo stations by 2018.

• 20,000 trips (equating to 30,000 jobs) would be at risk from predicted crowding being at unrealistic levels.

3.2 Cross River Tram benefits: • Provide an additional 18,000 passenger places per hour in Central London.

• Increase public transport capacity across Waterloo Bridge by 60%.

• Approximately 400,000 morning peak passengers on the Victoria, Northern & Piccadilly lines will have a more comfortable journey due to CRT, with a 4-8% reduction in demand on these services.

• Reduce congestion at stations such as Euston, Holborn and Elephant & Castle which are severely crowded and have no funded enhancements planned.

• A 2 minute service can carry 9,600 by tram or 3,000 by a double decker.

4. Addressing accessibility

4.1 Large parts of inner south London have a very low level of rail transport provision and poor PT accessibility index scores – with direct impacts on employment and income levels. • Population and employment forecasts significantly increase transport demand in the CRT corridor by 2026. Without increased provision, economic stagnation and social exclusion will be exacerbated.

• Connections between the central activity zone and the socially and economically excluded areas south of the river will worsen as congestion and crowding on existing services increase.

29

4.2 Cross River Tram benefits: • CRT will offer over 300,000 Londoners a high quality public transport service giving direct links to central London and access to over 1 million jobs. Over 70% of these residents are living in areas of high deprivation and/or low accessibility.

• CRT will deliver 30 new fully accessible stops along the corridor, compared to only four stops which are currently step free.

• Provide a service every 4 minutes from Brixton and Peckham to central London.

• Commuters from outer London boroughs and beyond will benefit as they will comprise over 30% of the patronage.

5. Addressing regeneration

• High levels of deprivation exist along the whole route, especially residents of the Aylesbury/North Peckham area (among the most deprived in the UK).

• 72% of the super output areas serviced by CRT are in the 20% most deprived areas in the UK.

• Significant numbers of public housing assets along the route are reaching the end of the economic life.

5.2 Cross River Tram benefits: • Increase the development potential of marginal sites and enable higher value investments with more job creation potential

• Will make marginal areas more attractive to new businesses and stimulate inward investment.

• Provide the ‘step-change’ in image, service delivery and transport capacity to fully capture the regeneration potential.

• Increases in land values along the corridor will help offset the cost of public housing stock renewal.

• International studies show that rail modes increase land values by between 5% & 20% and significantly .increase the marketability of land for redevelopment or refurbishment.

6. Addressing journey times

• 6.1 Underlying demand pressures, without corresponding capacity changes, increases crowding but also longer running times and more station delays.

6.2 Cross River Tram benefits: • Every morning, over 60,000 people will save more than 5 minutes.

• 8 million journeys a year will be quicker by over 10 minutes.

• Higher reliability through segregated running.

30

• Travelling from the Aylesbury Estate to Holborn will see a journey time reduction of over 20 minutes.

• As more passengers can move through the transport system quicker, pressure is relieved on the complementary parts of the network.

7. Capacity alternatives

Bus • Passenger demand is projected to increase by 30-40% by 2018

Tram Double Decker

Vehicles per hour 30 30

Vehicle capacity 320 100

Maximum Capacity per 9,600 3,000 hour

• Bus capacity is also restricted by infrastructure requirements e.g junctions and stops would not cope with significant increases in vehicle numbers

Overground • No planned improvements for the inner south London area.

• Existing lines at capacity – increases would affect overall service levels and mean slower journeys.

• New stations would offer only limited passenger catchments.

Underground • Northern Line capacity can be increased (with benefits concentrated north of Kennington) but would not address accessibility.

• Limited ability to increase Victoria and Piccadilly line capacity.

• Bakerloo line extension would be very expensive and have a significant planning and implementation horizon.

• Costs of existing station upgrades very expensive e.g ~£500 million for Euston station.

• Any alternative would also need to be fully accessible and enable step-free access.

Summary • Cross River Tram provides addresses the capacity and accessibility issues more effectively and efficiently than the alternatives at a fraction of the cost.

31

8. Tourism potential • Passengers will be able to visit a number of tourist highlights within close reach of the proposed route.

• Provides a direct link between St Pancras International and the national rail stations of Euston and Waterloo.

• Links the world renowned Camden Market at the northern end of the route to the vibrancy of Brixton and Peckham in the south.

• Help relieve weekend crowding at Camden Town station, which operates as an exit only station at weekends because of capacity constraints.

• Provide a link for visitors continuing south of the river, linking central London with the Imperial War Museum and Oval Cricket Ground as well as local markets.

• CRT is proud to have the Imperial War Museum, the Eurostar, Society of London Theatre, Tate Galleries and Visit London as ‘Friends of the Tram’.

9. Improving the environment • Cross River Tram will help improve the wider environment as well as the public realm along the whole corridor:

• Trams are quieter than buses and other heavy traffic.

• Trams emit no direct pollution or greenhouse gases and less than 50% of the CO2 per

passenger km compared to cars; reducing CO2 along the route by 19,000 tonnes p/a.

• All stops will be fully accessible, allowing step free access along the whole corridor route and enhancing access to the employment, educational and social opportunities available in central London.

• Cross River Tram will provide the opportunity to improve the public realm along the whole corridor.

32

10. Business supporters

Along with the significant cross borough and cross political party support for Cross River Tram, a significant number of large organisations and businesses recognise that Cross River Tram is vital to the maintaining London as a world centre Bombardier Chancery Lane Association Consulting Stream Cube City Properties Davis Langdon Eurostar Farebrother First Base Guys & St Thomas’ Hospital Imperial War Museum Kings College London Manpower Mitsubishi Lend Lease London South Bank University National Theatre Londons’ Transport Museum Oakmayne Properties Pearson South Bank Centre Surrey County Cricket Club Tate Theatre Museum The Bedford Estates The Society of London Theatre University of the Arts University College London Wavex

The Cross River Tram is going to be great for business, great for commuters, great for visitors and a huge boon to seriously deprived parts of the city, north & south of the river.

Sir David Bell, Chairman Financial Times ______

“The Tram will bring significant benefits to both the businesses and residents of Southwark and not least to the Imperial War Museum…For IWM [the tram]would have a major impact by bringing visitors directly to the Museum; we have estimated that this would allow our visitor numbers to double”

Sir Robert Crawford CBE, Director General, Imperial War Museum ______

We also believe the tram will reduce congestion at Kings X/St Pancras station and line such as the Victoria and Piccadilly which are in effect full for large parts of the morning and evening peaks. Nick Mercer, Commercial Director,

Eurostar ______

The National Theatre supports the tram as a major step towards a fully integrated transport system that will be of major benefit to the Waterloo area and the South Bank. It will offer an alternative to those who come into the area on some of the most congested tube lines in London, and improve connections with areas currently less well served by transport options.

John Langley, Theatre Manager, National Theatre

33

Evolution Quarter Residents Association (EQRA) submission

Q. What are the prospects for further progress on implementation and funding of the Cross River Tram project and are there viable alternatives to sole Government funding?

EQRA is a resident group which represents approximately 300 properties in the north Peckham area of Southwark. The Committee of our Association is not in a position to comment on the funding options for this scheme other than to state that any additional funding which improves the viability of this scheme would of course be warmly welcomed. EQRA believes that any first phase of this scheme must run from Peckham to Euston and that by constructing the sections of the route to Camden Town and Kings Cross at a later date could help to reduce the initial level of funding required.

Q. What are the alternative options to meeting the objectives for the Cross River Tram as set out in Transport 2025 and how effective are they likely to be?

EQRA notes that TfL selected the CRT as the preferred option for improving public transport in our community after a full analysis of the alternative options. It is on this basis that we fully support the proposed CRT as the best option along its route. EQRA also believe that the considerable amount of time and resources that have already been committed to this project place this scheme in a strong position going forward. It is likely that any change at this stage would have a considerable impact on the confidence and prospects for disadvantaged communities such as the north Peckham, Heygate and Aylesbury Estate’s. We shall therefore continue to favour this scheme over any alternative proposal, unless the business case for the CRT was to change materially since the original decision was taken by TfL. EQRA has not seen any evidence to date to suggest that this is the case.

Q. What implications does progress on the Cross River Tram project have on the further development of trams in London?

The CRT enjoys broad cross party and local authority support which has not always been evident in other tram projects proposed by TfL in the recent past. It also enjoys extremely high levels of public support as highlighted by a number of TfL consultations. If the Cross River Tram scheme were not to proceed, then it would seriously damage confidence in TfL’s other tram projects. It would also question London’s commitment to a mode of transport which is rapidly being embraced by other major cities elsewhere in the world. The Mayor of London can in our view enhance the prospects for other tram proposals in the capital, if he supports the CRT and delivers this scheme on time and on budget to the people of London.

EQRA would also like to highlight the following issues to the Committee, which are specific to north Peckham, in its submission:

Changing perceptions – North Peckham has struggled to reinvent itself following a major regeneration programme which saw the replacement of several notorious council estates with thousands of new homes and associated infrastructure. The construction of a modern, frequent and eco-friendly mode of transport through the area would bring commuters and visitors into the heart of our community and dispel the negative image of our area which continues to exist today.

Attracting and retaining residents for the medium to long term – Significant numbers of residents had moved to north Peckham in the past decade on the basis that public transport would be improved by the new tram (see appendix 1). Since doubts have emerged about the scheme and the completion date has slipped, there has been a sizeable reduction in the number of owner occupiers who were attracted to the area by the original regeneration scheme. EQRA believes poor public transport is one of the main reasons that these residents have failed to make north Peckham their long term home. 34

The varied mix of housing tenures was part of the original Peckham Partnership regeneration scheme and was intended to create a more balanced community. However, as private residents have left the area, many have been replaced by investors. Their tenants have in turn helped to create a highly transient population within the boundaries of our Association. This has made it much harder for resident groups like EQRA to develop and to attract support. In our view the tram would encourage more people to remain in our area, whilst attracting a better mix of new residents, who would support a much more sustainable and vibrant community.

Improving Community Safety – It is our hope and belief that by introducing a new regular transport service through north Peckham, levels of crime would reduce as the quality of life and economic prospects of residents (particularly young people) in the area improve. The opening up of Chandler Way which is currently closed to through traffic (if this is the chosen route) would also increase activity in an area which can be very quiet and poorly lit at night. The tram would also encourage more residents to abandon private car ownership, which could in turn lead to a reduction in the high levels of car crime in the area, in addition to the environmental benefits.

Enhanced Mobility – The new tram network will enable certain residents in our area to travel further and more conveniently, than has been the case in the past. This is particularly the case for older residents and parents with prams as well as for those with disabilities.

Utilisation of Chandler Way – The project could potentially open up Chandler Way, which was constructed as part of the original regeneration scheme and which runs through north Peckham. This road was designed to accommodate some form of public transport such as a tram or bus route, but is yet to fulfil this purpose.

Attract new funding to Burgess Park – This is one of the largest parks in South London and it requires substantial investment in order to maximise its potential. Transport for London would have to contribute a significant amount of resources to improvements in the park as part of the Cross River Tram project. This would improve the quality of life of nearby residents, many of whom live in flats, without private gardens, and for whom this is their nearest recreational space. The majority of residents backed the tram running through Burgess Park in a recent TfL consultation and EQRA believes that if approached sensitively, this issue should not be seen as an obstacle to the project’s development.

Increase viability of redevelopment / investment in area – The increase in land values along the route in north Peckham following the tram’s construction could enable new uses to be considered for underutilised or derelict sites in our area. The successful Galleria development by Barratt Homes in north Peckham highlights the benefits which can come from a mixed use development. This scheme involved the construction of new subsidised artistic studios, alongside new homes, which has in turn brought a new vibrancy into the area. Improved transport links would make further schemes, such as this one, much more economically viable.

Local employment and training opportunities – Irrespective of the final route chosen for the scheme, a new tram network would encourage new shops and services in and around Southampton Way. This would improve local employment and training opportunities.

Boost Peckham as an emerging artistic and cultural quarter of London – The reduction in journey times to Central London would make Peckham much more accessible and would benefit existing institutions such as the South London Gallery, Camberwell College of Arts and Southwark College, making them much more accessible for new and existing students. The tram could also encourage many students to remain in the area after they graduate, adding to the existing diversity of Peckham. TfL funding could also provide enhanced artistic facilities.

35

Tourism benefits and improved viability for increased events and amenities - Community events in Burgess Park and Peckham could see greater levels of public support with greater interest shown in these areas as tourist destinations in their own right.

Better connections to International Rail services – The route of the tram would provide residents with much better access to Kings Cross International and rail services to mainland Europe following the recent transfer of these services from Waterloo International.

Improved access to the new Tuke Special School in north Peckham – The tram would pass near to the proposed location of a new special needs school which is being built under the Southwark Schools for the Future programme (see appendix 2). The good accessibility of the tram carriages would bring benefits to the pupils of this new school as well as other existing and planned schools along the route.

Relieve pressure on existing bus routes – The tram would bring welcome relief to the growing pressures on the local 63/363 and 343 bus routes. TfL have already acknowledged to EQRA that problems do exist on the 343 bus route and a review of this service is scheduled to take place as part of the contract renewal for the service operator. However, the construction of new homes in the area has brought with it significant extra demand for services and this demand will only increase as the Aylesbury Estate redevelopment progresses. More and more residents now have to walk to bus routes on the Old Kent Road and Walworth Road as existing routes fail to cope with current demand at peak periods. This adds significant amounts of time to resident journeys.

36

Peckham Vision submission

Summary

Peckham Vision is a consortium of local residents, artists, businesses and the Peckham Society, which collates information about the development plans for Peckham Town Centre, including the tram and tram depot, and stimulates informed discussion about the future of Peckham.

1. TfL’s plan to locate the CRT depot in Peckham town centre will destroy self-generating renewal. There needs to be a full public review now of all the potential CRT depot sites to examine the full regeneration impacts.

2. Mid-Southwark needs improved transport. There should be an early new dedicated Express Bus or Shuttle service which follows the CRT route. This would help the planning for the CRT and other improved transport for Peckham and surrounding area.

3. The CRT must continue to be a cross river tram and get across the river in its first phase to Euston and Kings X.

Mid-Southwark needs improved transport

• The middle part of Southwark borough has big gaps in public transport services.

• Because it will take several years for the Cross River Tram to be implemented, in the meantime a new express or shuttle bus service in operation as soon as possible on the route of the tram would partially fill the huge public transport gap, and also provide a test of some of the issues in operating the cross river tram.

• If the tram is to go ahead, it must go across the river from the first stage because the Waterloo area is already overloaded, and the need is to get travellers, from this part of London, to connect directly with the tube and rail at Euston and Kings X.

Location of the tram depot

• Correct and appropriate locations for the tram depots for the CRT are vital to the success of the tram project. However TfL have publicly identified only one location – the heart of Peckham town centre - for the main tram depot.

• The only reason Peckham was chosen as the tram depot location was the proposed regeneration benefits. These were calculated using flawed information provided by TfL, who claimed that the site was derelict.

• The UDP Planning Inspector described this decision as ‘defective’ and based on ‘misinformation’, as the site was full of economic and community activities, with hundreds of jobs. He therefore ruled out the use of the site for the whole major tram depot, and said it had to be split between sites if any at all was to be located in Peckham town centre.

• But TfL’s revised ‘split-site’ plan is still to locate the main tram depot in the heart of Peckham town centre. This would destroy the emerging Copeland Cultural Quarter with the historic Bussey Building and many small creative businesses as well as other small businesses. In addition this new plan spreads out beyond the original boundaries even further into the town centre.

37

• This central core of Peckham town centre is already self-regenerating. The removal of this prime commercial land for a high security tram depot would destroy this self-regeneration.

• TfL needs to reveal its plans for all the tram depot locations, so that the Committee can examine their feasibility for the sound operation of the Cross River Tram, and their impact on the areas identified, and to avoid any further delays in the tram project planning.

38

Appendix C

There were over 100 attendees at the Cross River Tram seminar, including the following:

Mr John Abbott, London Borough of Southwark Mr Yemi Akinyemi, Transport for London Mr Luke Albanese, Project Director - Light Transit TfL Mr Chris Baker, Campaign for Better Transport Ms Maureen Baker Mr Laurie Baker, Head of Transport Planning Team, Culture & Environment Directorate Mr Phil Bale, Chair, Evolution Quarter Resident's Association Mr Tim Bellenger, London TravelWatch Mr Alan Bowers Mr Lee Campbell, Principal Planner, Transport for London Mr Adrian Couch, Chief Executive, South Bank Employers' Group Mr John Cox, London Campaign for Better Transport Mr Geoff Dale Mr Luke Dickens, Peckham Vision Ms Gail Engert, Board Member, London Travel Watch Mr Chris Ferrary, Associate, Steer Davies Gleave Mr Richard Finch, Team Leader - Strategic Transport Development, LB Tower Hamlets Mr William Fooks Cllr George Gillon, City of London Mr Luna Glucksberg, Bells Gardens Resident Association Mr Jerry Gold, London TravelWatch Ms Lizzie Gomes, Assistant Planner, CRBE Ms Liz Halsted, London Borough of Camden Cllr Barrie Hargrove, London Borough of Southwark Mr Leigh Hatts, Bankside Press Mr Cynthia Hay Cllr Julian Heather, London Borough of Lambeth Mr Dave Hoefling, Somers Town Peoples Forum Mr Patrick Horan, Southwark Disablement Association Ms Elizabeth Hollis, Transport for London Ms Shirin Homawala, London Communications Cllr Kim Humphreys, London Borough of Southwark Prof Peter Jones, University College London Ms Libby Kemp, Member, London Travel Watch Mr Tim Long, London Borough of Camden Mr Ronald, Lynn, Lambeth Public Transport Group Ms Miranda Martin, Churchway Tenants and Residents Association Mr Barry Mason, Southwark Cyclists Ms Susan McQuail, Peckham Vision Mr, Derek Nebitt, Chair, Churchway Tenants and Residents Association Mr Tom Noble, Transportation Research Assistant, City of London Cllr Paul Noblet, London Borough of Southwark Mr Matthew Noon, London Borough of Lambeth Mr Alan Patterson, Somers Festival of Culture Mr Chris Patterson, Transport for London Mr Mike Peacey Director of Property Services, Cancer Research UK Ms Jennifer Quinton Chelley Ms Lorna Reith, Deputy Chair, London Travel Watch 39

Cllr Roger Robinson, London Borough of Camden Mr Andrew Sawdon, London Borough of Lambeth Ms Jo Shaw Mr Greg Sheppard, Grainger PLC Cllr Tayo Situ, London Borough of Southwark Dr Savas Sivetidis, Director, Cross River Partnership Ms Jean Skinner Ms Helen Smith, Transport and Access officer, Cross River Partnership Mr Martin Smith, London Borough of Southwark Mr John Smith, SP Housing Mr John Strange, South East London WDM Mr David Walmsley, Confederation of Passenger Transport Ms Sarah Walton, Asst Director, Cross River Partnership Ms Camilla Ween, Transport for London Mr Michael Willsher, Light Rail Transit Association Mr Alex Wilson, Peckham Vision Ms Stella Young

40