Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Transport for London December 2008

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

10 Eastbourne Terrace, London, W2 6LG

Tables
Table 2.1: Distribution of London Underground crowding costs by location and time of day (all costs given as % of morning peak total crowding) 9 Distribution of trip times (minutes) by level of crowding – morning peak hour 11 Crowded passenger hours in morning peak hour 11

Table 2.2: Table 2.3: Table 2.4: Table 2.5: Table 3.1: Table 3.2: Table 3.3: Table 3.4: Table 4.1: Table 4.2: Table 4.3:

Railplan model results of 1000 additional destinations (2001 base) 11 Rail mode share for travel to work TRAVL Trip Generation Rates Rail mode share for travel to work TRAVL Rail Mode Shares Calculation of impact for office developments by location Trip generation rates to retailers Morning peak rail retail trip rates Evening peak rail retail trip rates 13 15 16 17 18 20 20 20

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 4.4: Table 4.5: Table 4.6: Table 4.7: Table 5.1: Table 6.1: Table 6.2: Table 6.3: Table 6.4: Table 6.5: Table 6.6: Table 6.7: Table 7.1: Table 7.2: Table 7.3: Table 7.4: Table 8.1: Table 8.2: Table 8.3: Table 8.4: Table 8.5: Table 8.6: Table 9.1:

Retail - Impact from employee trips (morning peak) Retail - impact from shoppers (morning peak) Retail - impact from shoppers (evening peak) London underground exits by time period

20 21 21 21

Calculation of impact for hotel developments for employees and guests 24 Residential trip generation rates per morning peak period per 100 square metres 26 Trip generation residential developments TRAVL rail mode shares for residential trips morning peak Proportion of travel to work trips by rail Travel to work trips by destination Crowding cost assumptions Residential – impact imposed on rail network morning peak 27 27 28 29 29 29

Rail mode share, Crossrail buffer region outside of Z1 against all non-Z1 31 Impact to the rail network from office developments local to Crossrail stations Impact to the rail network from retail developments local to Crossrail stations 31 32

Impact to the rail network from residential developments local to Crossrail stations 32 Summary table – impact indices Impact Index using London Travel Report mode share Alternative crowding costs Alternative impact index for Residential developments Impact index commercial developments Impact index retail developments 33 33 34 34 35 35

Relative crowding impact by destination type and location Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figures
Figure 2.1: Figure 2.2: London underground crowding by time of day Crowding curve 9 10

3

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4: Figure 3.1: Figure 4.1: Figure 6.1: Figure 6.2: Figure 7.1: Figure A1: Figure A2: Figure A3: Figure A4:

1987 passenger crowding v 1987-2000 demand growth, fitted straight line represents linear regression of growth on crowding12 Rail mode share by LSOA Rail Mode share by LSOA 13 17

Distribution of trips to office and retail development in the morning peak 22 Average floor space by household size, England 2001 (sqm/person) Rail mode share – residential land use Buffer Zones in West London Isle of Dogs bus map Bank bus map 26 28 30 38 38

Isle of Dogs morning peak travel by mode of transport (source: London Travel Report, p 7) 39 Peak morning travel into central London, by mode of transport (source: London Travel Report, p 5) 39

4

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

1
1.1
1.1.1

Introduction
Background
This note sets out the methodology that has been used to assess the impact that development in London has on the rail network (that is, on both the London Underground and national rail networks) by the nature and location of that development. The results from this analysis have been used to determine if, where and how much contributions under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be sought to mitigate the impact of these developments on the rail network. Planning obligations secured through S106 are private agreements usually negotiated in the context of a planning application between local authorities and developers. They are intended to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. Guidance on developer contributions is outlined in ODPM Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’ which sets out the Secretary of State’s five policy tests for planning obligations, namely: relevant to planning; necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects. The guidance states that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the five tests. This note relates particularly to point 3 and partially to point 4, that is, demonstrating how any S106 contribution sought is directly related to the proposed development and related to the scale and kind of development. This report sets out how to determine the impact of development on the rail network; and how that impact varies by development type and location.

1.1.2

1.1.3

1.1.4

1.1.5

1.1.6

The analysis used is consistent with the transport modelling for Crossrail’s business case and with the economic appraisal of Crossrail.

5

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

2
2.1
2.1.1

Determining impact on development on the rail network
Determining a measure of impact
The analysis uses the crowding costs imposed on other rail users as the indicator of impact for new developments. This is to meet the conditions set out in Circular 05/2005. The main reasons for choosing rail passenger crowding costs are: crowding on the rail network is an indicator of an imbalance between the supply of rail capacity and passenger demand; rail services in parts of London suffer from very high levels of crowding; crowding imposes a major disbenefit to users which can be quantified in monetary terms in line with Department for Transport guidance; rail passenger crowding is a key reason why new rail capacity is provided in London; crowding relief on the rail network accounts for a third of Crossrail’s benefits; crowding relief is also taken into consideration within the Wider Economic Benefits (that is, the quantification of agglomeration benefits) the reduction in crowding removes a constraint on future central London development posed by the lack of rail capacity, again calculated in line with Department for Transport guidance ; impacts on rail passenger crowding were available from the Crossrail modelling work and is consistent with the Crossrail economic appraisal; A number of alternatives to using crowding costs as the measure of impact of development were considered as follows: Additional jobs – it would have been possible to levy a charge on the increase in employment across London. But changes in employment do not necessarily impose any impact on the rail network it depends where that development takes place. So a development employing 100 people adjacent to the M25 might have no-one travelling to work by rail while a similar sized development in central London may have 90% of its employees using the rail network. The nature of the development will also lead to different impacts in terms of timing of trips and hence its impact on the rail network. Additional square metres of development – this faces the same problems as the additional jobs measure above. The size and nature of the new development may have no direct link to the impact imposed on the rail network, which is a necessary condition for seeking a S106 contribution to mitigate that impact. The change in accessibility provided by Crossrail – this was considered as an indicator but would have been working backwards from the impact of Crossrail rather than from the impact caused by additional developments. The change in capacity provided by Crossrail – again this was considered but again it is a measure of the impact of Crossrail not a measure of the impact of development on Crossrail. Our conclusion is that only the cost of rail crowding provides an appropriate measure of the impact caused by new developments to the rail network. The main implications of using rail passenger crowding as the measure of impact are to: enable differences in impact according to geographic location of developments to be assessed;

2.1.2

2.1.3 2.1.4

2.1.5

2.1.6

2.1.7

2.1.8 2.1.9

6

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

2.1.10

enable differences in impact according to type of developments to be assessed; and enable account to be taken of differences in impact according to time period, with rail crowding being largely a peak period issue. In summary, the impact that development has on the rail network is to generate additional trips which may result in increased levels of crowding depending on the location and nature of that development. This in turn leads to requirements to increase capacity. One of Crossrail’s key objectives is to provide additional rail capacity into central London and the Isle of Dogs to enable future demand to be met and mitigate projected increased crowding on existing rail lines.

2.2
2.2.1

Determining the impact of development
Determining the impact that development has on the rail network requires a number of tasks to be undertaken. These include: defining crowding; assessing the present level of crowding; assessing the cost of crowding and demonstrating the impact that crowding has on patronage; and demonstrating how new development increases rail usage by location and type of development. By its very nature the methodology and analysis is based on the impact of the average development by type of development in broad spatial areas across London. In doing so it is line with the Government’s objective of having in place standard formulae to assess impacts and contributions.

2.2.2

2.3
2.3.1

Defining crowding and assessing present levels of crowding
Defining transport capacity and hence crowding is a complex task. On the national rail network, capacity is defined by standards rather than the physical carrying capacity of the train. Train operating companies are expected to provide sufficient capacity to prevent passengers having to stand involuntarily for more than 20 minutes. So in the case of trains which are timetabled to run non-stop for 20 minutes or more capacity is deemed to be equal to the seating capacity. For other services capacity is usually taken as 135% of the number of seats available. Passengers in excess of capacity (PIXC) is expressed as the percentage of peak period passengers who are standing in excess of planned capacity of the trains on which they are travelling. Trains are assumed to run with the programmed number of carriages, irrespective of whether they actually do at the time of the count. Whilst spare capacity on other trains is disregarded so there is no netting off of heavily loaded trains against others. The peak periods are defined as 07:00-09:59 into London and 16.00-18.59 out of London. Train operating companies are required where practical to ensure they operate at PIXC below 4.5% in any one peak or 3% on average over both peaks. Average PIXC across all train companies for morning peak services into London is 4.8% (Office of Rail Regulation National Rail Trends Yearbook 2006-2007 – 6 September 2007). The standard measure of capacity used by TfL and London Underground is planning guidance capacity (PGC). This is defined as PGC = (seating capacity +60% of crush standing capacity)* 0.67 * 0.98

2.3.2

2.3.3

2.3.4

Crush capacity is the maximum number of people that it is physically possible to squeeze onto a train. Account is then taken of the fact that trains are not equally

7

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

loaded along their length and are not equally crowded (the 0.67 factor) and service reliability is not 100% (but 98% hence the 0.98 factor). 2.3.5 TfL apply three standard categorisations of crowding on rail links. At 80% of PGC ontrain conditions are described as busy, at 100% as crowded and at 125% as very crowded. London Underground advises that beyond 150% of PGC services become impossible to operate effectively. At very high loadings, the dwell times at stations increase to the point at which it is impossible to maintain service frequency. London Underground also advises that in recent years passengers have tended to stop using services before that extreme level of crowding is reached. How passengers experience crowding on London Underground and national rail can be measured in various ways. The most relevant measure is to use select link analysis (SLA). This measures the level of crowding experienced on each link of a public transport journey from origin to destination. Thereby stating what proportion of a person’s journey will be at levels of crowding over some predetermined level to a defined destination. That is, it is possible to state what proportion of journeys and for what length of time, are in crowded conditions to a destination. This data is obtained from the Railplan model which is a morning peak assignment model of London covering all public transport modes. Crowding is very largely a peak period issue. There is some crowding at other times of the day, but much smaller in scale and in any event off peak crowding could generally be resolved by running some additional trains. In the peak periods there is little scope to run additional services and so new infrastructure is required to provide a solution. The distribution of passenger crowding by time of day on London Underground services 1 , based on observed data for 2002 is shown in figure 2.1. This shows that crowding (as shown by the yellow line) is very peaked occurring largely in the morning and evening peak periods. The morning shows a higher peak, but across a shorter time period whereas the evening peak is lower but broader.

2.3.6

2.3.7

2.3.8

1

Similar data is not available for national rail services

8

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure 2.1:
2,000,000

London underground crowding by time of day
12,000

1,800,000 10,000 1,600,000

1,400,000 8,000 Passengers (link flows) Crowding (hours) 1,200,000

1,000,000

6,000

800,000 4,000 600,000

400,000 2,000 200,000

0
0500- 0545- 0630- 0715- 0800- 0845- 0930- 1015- 1100- 1145- 1230- 1315- 1400- 1445- 1530- 1615- 1700- 1745- 1830- 1915- 2000- 2045- 2130- 2215- 2300- 23450515 0600 0645 0730 0815 0900 0945 1030 1115 1200 1245 1330 1415 1500 1545 1630 1715 1800 1845 1930 2015 2100 2145 2230 2315 2400

0

Sum of Flow

Sum of PGC

Sum of Crowded Hours

Source: CB analysis of RODS data for CLRL

Table 2.1:

Distribution of London Underground crowding costs by location and time of day (all costs given as % of morning peak total crowding) early morning peak 68 25 7 100 inter-peak 10 1 0 11 evening peak 43 15 5 63 late 6 3 0 10

central inner outer total 2.3.9

0 0 0 1

Table 2.1 shows the same information as figure 2.1 but in a different format, showing both the total crowding by time period and the distribution of that crowding split between central, inner and outer London. It should be noted that the geographic distribution of crowding relates to where that crowding takes place and not to where the passengers who experience that crowding are travelling to. Most crowding within the Inner area in the morning peak period is associated with trips heading to the central zone. It is also worth mentioning that demand on London Underground has increased significantly since 2002 and that growth has been greater in the inter-peak and late time periods than in the peaks. The data above is illustrative in order to show the sort of distribution that we might expect to find.

2.3.10

9

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

2.4
2.4.1

Assessment of crowding costs
Every additional trip on a crowded rail service imposes a cost on other rail users (crowding is largely an external cost imposed on others rather than an internal cost borne by the additional passenger). Crowding costs and changes in the level of passenger crowding form a key component of rail scheme economic appraisal. Rail infrastructure requirements in London are largely driven by morning peak period demand when rail crowding is at its worst. The models of public transport in London therefore focus on the morning peak period. Crowding costs are determined by applying a “crowding factor” (CF) to the actual journey time on each link that is crowded. This (CF) is determined by a formula relating passenger demand to a combination of seating and standing capacity. The formula used within the Railplan model (RP) is a highly conservative representation of crowding and assumes a straight line relationship between demand and the CF, with no capacity constraint imposed on any line. The RP crowding curve is shown in figure 2.2. Figure 2.2: Crowding curve

2.4.2

crowding cost factor 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 generalised cost factor

1
0.22 0.44 0.66 0.88 1.1 1.32 1.54 1.76 1.98 Demand to PGC ratio

2.4.3

Two approaches have been tested to understand the scale of the crowding costs generated by additional rail trips: the first is based on Select Link Analysis (SLA) and looks at the proportion of time trips to the central zone spend under particular levels of crowding. the second is derived from model tests undertaken by Crossrail where 1,000 additional rail trips were added to overall demand in the first case with those trips having destinations in the central zone and in the second with destinations in outer London.

2.5
2.5.1

Select Link Analysis results
Using SLA it is possible to determine the number of rail trips; to each destination; the amount of time spent at each level of crowding; and the monetised value of the disbenefit caused by that crowding. Table 2.2 below shows the results of the SLA undertaken by CB for CLRL in 2004 and consistent with the economic appraisal of Crossrail produced at that time. The data is

2.5.2

10

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

for a 2001 base year. The table shows the number of rail trips to each destination area and the amount of time spent on average within different levels of crowding. Crowding in excess of 1.0 is beyond TfL’s targets, but accounts for 28% of all time on the network in the morning peak hour. Around 1.5 PGC is the point at which London Underground suggest that service operations break down. Table 2.2: Distribution of trip times (minutes) by level of crowding – morning peak hour SL>0.00
446,549 2,687,311 10,115,539 4,753,719 16,180,771 19,520,347

PT Trips Isle of Dogs City Central Westminster London All Zones 2.5.3
17,831 93,863 397,894 199,392 850,961 930,622

SL>0.30
429,429 2,474,912 9,204,902 4,347,259 13,848,178 14,961,387

SL>0.75
277,750 1,916,269 6,909,497 3,218,763 9,788,431 10,179,974

SL>0.80
265,040 1,718,380 6,323,561 2,971,295 8,930,012 9,284,052

SL>1.00
152,875 956,689 3,835,590 1,875,030 5,302,703 5,481,881

SL>1.25
49,495 357,182 1,425,767 695,869 1,949,020 2,019,459

SL>1.5
4,105 38,384 110,991 48,893 150,599 156,646

By applying the Railplan crowding curve shown in figure 2.2 it is possible to determine the total crowding cost (in generalised minutes) and by dividing by the number of passengers it is possible to determine the average cost per public transport trip. Working through that process produces the following findings: Table 2.3: Crowded passenger hours in morning peak hour Trips to central zone 416,000 155,000 0.37 3.0 Trips to rest of London 515,000 65,000 0.13

Number of trips Crowded hours Crowded hours per trip Central: Rest of London 2.5.4

Thus on average rail trips to central zone produce about three times as much crowding as trips to the rest of London.

2.6
2.6.1

Results of Railplan model runs
In addition to the SLA approach additional Railplan tests have been run to test the impact of adding 1,000 additional commuting trips to central zone and the same number to outer London. The results of those tests are summarised in Table 2.4. Table 2.4: Railplan model results of 1000 additional destinations (2001 base) Trips to central zone 1,000 430 0.43 2.7 Trips to rest of London 1,000 159 0.16

Number of trips Crowded hours Crowded hours per trip Central: Rest of London 2.6.2

Since we are interested in the marginal impact of development, table 2.4 above can be used to show that crowding costs for trips to central zone are about 2.7 times larger than those to the rest of London.

11

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

2.7
2.7.1

Crowding and patronage growth
There is a clear link between passenger crowding and demand growth. Figure 2.2 shows this relationship which arises from research undertaken for Crossrail. 2 Figure 2.3: 1987 passenger crowding v 1987-2000 demand growth, fitted straight line represents linear regression of growth on crowding

2.7.2

The analysis shows that links with a crowding level of around 75% of PGC and above start to experience negative growth, illustrating that passengers are not prepared to travel at these levels of crowding.

2.8
2.8.1

Crowding by location
Crowding on the rail network varies by location and hence the impact of new development is also likely to vary by location. There are two main elements to this; crowding levels by location and mode choice by location. Taking mode choice first, rail mode share (both underground and national rail) by geographic zone was taken from analysis of the 2001 Population Census. Rail mode share is available by area of residence and workplace, by lower super output area (LSOA) 3 level. Residents working from home or currently not working have been taken out of the rail mode share calculations. London was split into the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) and the three super output areas which broadly make up the business zone in the Isle of Dogs (for simplicity the combined area is referred to as the central zone), as designated in the London Plan (please refer to policy 5G.1 p.353 of the 2008 London Plan). Inner London includes all
While the analysis was done a number of years ago there is no reason to suppose the relationship shown is not still valid. 3 LSOA are spatial areas defined by the Office for National Statistics with a mean population of 1,500
2

2.8.2

2.8.3

12

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

boroughs within inner London, excluding the CAZ and the Isle of Dogs business area defined above, and outer London incorporates the remaining outer boroughs. The rail mode share for each zone is shown in table 2.5 and figure 2.4. Table 2.5: Rail mode share for travel to work Rail Mode Share 71% 29% 11% 17%

Boundary Central Zone Inner London Outer London Inner/outer London Figure 2.4: Rail mode share by LSOA

2.8.4

Turning to crowding, using SLA, it is possible to determine the number of rail trips to each destination area and the amount of time spent on average within different levels of crowding. By dividing the number of crowded trips by the crowded hours it is possible to estimate crowded hours per trip in the central zone, compared to the rest of London.

2.9
2.9.1 2.9.2

Other issues
The results above are for the morning peak period and therefore represent an average across three hours (07.00-10.00). This analysis considers rail trips to the central zone for whatever journey purpose, the time and direction of the trips are more important in determining crowding costs imposed than any variations of trip length or patterns associated with different journey purposes. Having said that it is possible that trips to the central zone for retail (for example) have very different distributions and hence different crowding costs than average. Crowding increases over time from 2001 until the opening of Crossrail in 2017, despite the assumed delivery of the PPP enhancements, the Thameslink enhancement and a series of national rail capacity enhancements. The 2001 results are 17% lower than those for the ‘2016 without Crossrail modelled scenario’ in terms of average crowded

2.9.3

13

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

time per passenger, so the additional crowding cost would be expected to increase by 1% per annum even without allowing for increases in the value of time.

2.10
2.10.1

Conclusions
It seems reasonable to conclude that rail trips to the central zone generate about three times as much crowding costs on average as rail trips to all other parts of London.

14

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

3
3.1
3.1.1

Office developments
Introduction
This chapter considers the appropriate levels of S106 charges that could be applied to office developments. That analysis depends on bringing together: the crowding costs by destination area described in Chapter 2; appropriate trip generation rates for office developments, concentrating on the morning peak; and analysis of the likely rail mode share for those generated trips.

3.1.2

Those three factors combine to produce an indicator of impact or crowding costs imposed on the rail network by office developments in different locations.

3.2
3.2.1

Trip generation rates
A number of alternative sources of trip generation rates have been reviewed by the study team. These comprise: general assumptions on employment density and trip rates TRAVL which is a database based on observed trips rates and mode shares to developments

The general approach
3.2.2 A typical transport planning approach to this would be: each office development will have an average of one employee per 19 square metres (source: Employment Densities, English Partnerships and Regional Development Authorities, Arup, 2001); and, each employee generates 0.85 inbound trips per morning peak period allowing for periods of annual and sick leave. Thus each 100 square metres of office space generates 4.4 inbound trips per morning peak period.

3.2.3

TRAVL/TRICS
3.2.4 The TRAVL and TRICS databases contain details of trip generation rates and mode shares of trips to different development types. TRICS is UK-wide whilst TRAVL is London specific. Due to the limitations of the TRICS database, we have not used it in the analysis. For commercial office space TRAVL gives the results shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Area TRAVL Trip Generation Rates

3.2.5

TRAVL all mode trips per 100 sq metres Greater London 4.6 central zone 4.2 inner 4.6 outer 5.5 The TRAVL database results appear to be broadly consistent with the “general approach” described in 3.2.2. TRAVL shows a pattern of trips reducing by floor area as development is located more centrally, but this is based on an extremely low sample of sites and therefore needs to be treated with caution. The number of central

15

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

zone offices within the TRAVL database is 8 and the total sample of offices within the whole database is only 50 (only half of which have been surveyed since 2000). 3.2.6 Given the limitations of the TRAVL database we propose to apply a standard measure of 4.4 inbound trips per 100 square metres of office development space and hold that constant for all areas of London.

3.3
3.3.1

Rail mode shares
Mode share data for journeys to work is available from a number of sources: census data TRAVL London Travel Report 2007 (TfL)

Census data
3.3.2 The table below sets out rail mode share by central, inner and outer London zones. Inner London refers to all boroughs within inner London, excluding those in the central zone and outer London incorporates all other zones in Greater London. Rail mode share was taken from the census 2001 at LSOA level. Population working from home and currently not working have been taken out of the rail mode share calculations. Table 3.2: Rail mode share for travel to work Rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17%

Boundary central zone inner London outer London inner/outer London 3.3.3

The map below sets out rail mode share by LSOA within the central zone, inner and outer London zones. It clearly shows the reduction in rail mode share when moving away from central zone.

16

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure 3.1:

Rail Mode share by LSOA

TRAVL data
3.3.4 The TRAVL data suffers from the same issues of low sample sizes as before. However, the results from TRAVL are broadly comparable to those from the census. Table 3.3: Land use Office TRAVL Rail Mode Shares Area Greater London central inner outer TRAVL rail % modal share 40 74 37 10

London Travel Report, 2007
3.3.5 The London Travel Report 2007 provides the main mode of travel to work for 2006. As for the census data set this represents all journeys to work across all time periods rather than morning peak period data. The rail mode shares to central, inner and outer London are as follows: central zone 68% rest of inner London 35% outer London 10% 3.3.6 These figures are broadly comparable to the 2001 census figures. The remainder of this analysis uses the rail mode shares from the census data, but the estimation of an “impact index” using rail mode share from the London Travel Report has been tested as a sensitivity in section seven of this report.

17

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

3.4
3.4.1

Quantifying impact to the rail network
The calculation of total impact to the rail network from office developments in the morning peak period is determined simply by multiplying trip generation rates by rail mode share by a crowding cost per trip indicator, to produce an index of impact. The results of this are shown in table 3.4. Table 3.4: area central zone inner outer inner/outer Calculation of impact for office developments by location trips per 100 sqm 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17% crowding cost per trip 3 1 1 1 total impact (index) 9.4 1.3 0.5 0.8

3.4.2

The index is to show what the relative charges would need to be to try and best reflect the differing amount of impact caused to the rail network (or other rail users). Thus the charge to office developments in the central zone area would need to be twelve times higher than the charge to a combined inner/outer (or rest of London) charge. If a three zone system were to be used then the central zone charge would need to be seven times higher than that for inner London and nineteen times higher than that for outer London.

18

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

4
4.1
4.1.1

Retail developments
Introduction
This chapter considers the appropriate levels of S106 charges that could be applied to retail developments. The analysis is the same as applied in Chapter 3 for office developments and depends on bringing together: the crowding costs by destination area described in Chapter 2; appropriate trip generation rates for retail developments, covering both employees and shopping trips for the morning and the evening peak; and analysis of the likely rail mode share for these trips. For retail developments there are two distinct types of trips, those related to retail employees and their journeys to work and those related to shoppers.

4.1.2

4.2
4.2.1

Trip generation rates
A number of alternative sources of trip generation rates have been reviewed by the study team. These comprise: general assumptions on employment density and trip rates TRAVL which is a database based on observed trips rates and mode shares

The approach for retail employees
4.2.2 A typical transport planning approach to this would be: each retail development will have an average of one employee per 19 square metres (source: Employment Densities, English Partnerships and Regional Development Authorities, Arup, 2001); and, each employee generates 0.85 inbound trips per morning peak period allowing for periods of annual and sick leave. Thus each 100 square metres of retail space generates 4.4-4.5 inbound trips per morning peak period, exactly the same as for office developments. However, there is a significant issue that may serve to reduce the rail trip generation rate for retail employees. That is that retail employees are more likely to work shifts and hence generate less peak period commuting than office developments. 44% of retail workers in Westminster are part time compared to only 20% in business services and 8% in public administration. We are unable to accurately identify an appropriate factor for this effect at present but for the moment have assumed a one third reduction in peak period commuting rates compared to office developments. The morning peak trip generation rates for employees are therefore assumed to be 3 per 100 square metres. No other information is available distinguishing commuting trips to retailers.

4.2.3 4.2.4

4.2.5

The approach for shopping trips
4.2.6 The TRAVL database contains details of trip generation rates and mode shares of trips to different development types. TRICS is UK-wide whilst TRAVL is London specific. For retail space they give the results shown in table 4.1.

19

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 4.1: Area

Trip generation rates to retailers TRAVL All Mode Trips Per 100 Sq Metres 19 56.8 18.7 9.6

Greater London central zone inner outer

4.2.7

The main problem with TRAVL retail data is that these numbers do not represent pure shopping trips but are largely trips being undertaken for other purposes which include visiting a shop along the way. In addition the number of central zone retail sites within the TRAVL database is very low, at five and the total sample of retail sites within the whole database is only 128. In conclusion we do not want to rely on either data source for retail trip rates. Instead we have calculated retail trip rate as the number of retail trips (from the London Area Transport Survey factored up to total rail trips in London) divided by the retail floor area (as per Commercial and Industrial Floor space Rateable Value Statistics, Neighbourhood Statistics, 2005). Table 4.2: morning peak period central inner outer Table 4.3: evening peak period central inner outer Morning peak rail retail trip rates retail trips (lats) 3,841 4,442 12,142 retail floor area (‘000 sq metres) 2,348 5,018 8,219 trip rate per 100 sq metres 0.16 0.09 0.15

4.2.8

Evening peak rail retail trip rates retail trips (lats) 40,211 18,585 21,316 retail floor area (‘000 sq metres) 2,348 5,018 8,219 trip rate per 100 sq metres 1.71 0.37 0.26

4.3
4.3.1

Quantifying impact to the rail network
The calculation of total impact to the rail network from retail developments in the morning peak period would therefore come in two parts as shown in tables 4.4 and 4.5. Table 4.4: area central inner outer inner/outer Retail - Impact from employee trips (morning peak) trips per 100 sqm 3 3 3 3 rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17% crowding cost per trip 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 total impact (index) 6.9 1.0 0.4 0.6

20

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 4.5: area central inner outer inner/outer Table 4.6: area central inner outer inner/outer 4.3.2

Retail - impact from shoppers (morning peak) trips per 100 sqm 0.16 0.09 0.15 0.12 rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17% crowding cost per trip 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 total impact (index) 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.02

Retail - impact from shoppers (evening peak) trips per 100 sqm 1.71 0.37 0.26 0.31 rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17% crowding cost per trip 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 total impact (index) 3.61 0.11 0.03 0.05

The analysis above reflects movements during the peak period. For example, the morning peak period is defined as 7am-10am. However, the number of people travelling over that time period is not constant. Data from London Underground station exits by 15 minute time slots shows the peak number of exits is between 08.15 and 09.15 accounting for almost half of morning peak period exits. Table 4.7:
07000715 24387 3% 07150730 34288 4%

London underground exits by time period
07300745 48816 6% 07450800 61649 7% 08000815 72973 8% 08150830 85294 10% 08300845 103094 12% 08450900 111012 13% 09000915 103687 12% 09150930 85031 10% 09300945 70775 8% 09451000 58187 7%

Source 2005 exit counts LUL 4.3.3 In order to determine the impact of retail trips on rail crowding in the morning peak, an analysis of retail trips and their distribution during the morning peak was carried out, and compared to the distribution of commercial trips, using data taken from the TRAVL datasets. The trips to each development are for all purposes (ie employees, visitors, shoppers etc and are not available by journey purpose.) The data is in half hour rather than quarter hour slots but the chart clearly shows the difference in the distribution of trips to office and retail developments in the morning peak. Almost two thirds of morning peak trips to retail outlets are in the period 9-10am compared to just 18% of trips to office developments. This would imply that trips to retail developments tend to take place far more at the shoulder of the morning peak rather than at the “peak of the peak” that is the busiest hour on the network.

4.3.4

21

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure 4.1:

Distribution of trips to office and retail development in the morning peak

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 07:00 07:30 08:00 08:30 09:00 09:30 10:00

retail

commercial

Source TRAVL database using major office and retail developments in London

4.4
4.4.1

Retail conclusions
The main impact of retail developments on the rail network comes from the journeys to work of employees. In the morning peak in particular, which is the basis for the modelling and appraisal work on rail schemes, the impact of shoppers themselves is minimal. Adding the morning peak impacts together would give a total impact index of: 7.23 for retail developments in central zone 0.98 for retail developments in inner London 0.38 for retail developments in outer London

4.4.2

4.4.3

However, retail development generated trips tend to occur at the shoulder of the morning peak period.

22

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

5
5.1
5.1.1

Hotels
Introduction
This chapter considers the appropriate levels of S106 charges that could be applied to hotel developments. The calculation of impact to the rail network of hotel developments has taken into account trips during the morning peak generated by hotel workers as well as hotel guests, and follows the same methodology as the one applied to office and retail developments. The analysis only investigates impact to the network of developments within central London, as it is unlikely that hotel developments in inner and outer London will have a significant impact on the rail network: it is most probable that business visitors choose hotels closer to their work destinations where they will not have to use the rail/underground system. Similarly leisure visitors staying in hotels in inner and outer London are unlikely to travel into central London during the peak periods to avoid peak fares and congestion. There is a general lack of robust data available regarding trip patterns and mode share for hotel developments. The results of the analysis therefore need to be interpreted with care.

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.2
5.2.1

Trip generation rates
Trip generation rates have been derived from the TRAVL database, which contains trip information for twelve hotels within Greater London. Using TRAVL, the morning peak trip rate for hotel developments reaches 1.4 trips per room, which amounts to 3.7 trips per 100 sqm gross floorspace (using an average of 38 sqm per room also derived from the TRAVL database). In order to determine trips undertaken by hotel employees during the morning peak, the following assumptions were made: an average of 0.5 employees per bedroom 4 ( equivalent to 1.3 trips per 100 sqm floorspace); and one third reduction in morning peak work trips to take into account shift work (same approach used for retail developments)

5.2.2

5.2.3 5.2.4

Hotel developments therefore generate roughly 1 trip per 100 sqm during the morning peak period, which means 2.7 trips are undertaken by hotel guests. Hotel guests on business trips are more likely to use rail/underground than leisure visitors during the morning peak period. Therefore total guests have been split between business and leisure visitors, assuming business visitors represent 25% of total guests (assumption based on table 7.3.2 of the London Travel Report). However it is possible that during the morning peak period the proportion of business trips increases.

5.3
5.3.1

Rail mode share
Rail mode share for central London has been taken from the census data and applied to work trips and guests on business trips. However leisure visitor trips in central London are less likely to use rail during the morning peak (to avoid peak congestion and fares). There is no robust data available to estimate rail mode share for leisure visitors during the morning peak, however analysis of the LATS data seems to
4

Employment Densities: A full guide, English Partnerships,2001

23

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

suggest low levels of rail use for leisure trips during the morning peak period (around 3%, but based on a very small sample size). Taking this into account, a rail mode share for these trips has been assumed to be around 10%.

5.4
5.4.1

Quantifying impact to the rail network
The table below sets out the impact of hotel developments on the rail network in central London. It shows that the impact index for hotel developments is 4.1, which is lower than office and retail developments in central London (approximately 40% and 60% of the office and retail impact index respectively). Table 5.1: Calculation of impact for hotel developments for employees and guests central zone crowding cost Employees Visitors business leisure TOTAL 3 3 3 trips per 100 sqm during the morning peak 1.0 2.7 0.7 2.0 3.7 rail mode share 71% 71% 10% impact index 2 1.5 0.6 4.1

24

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

6
6.1
6.1.1

Residential developments
Introduction
This chapter looks at applying the same approach to residential developments. Before doing that however there are a number of issues specific to residential developments that need to be taken into account. There is an important issue of causation for justifying a S106 charge on residential developments. In broad terms one would expect that the increase in employment in London would be matched by a corresponding increase in residential development within London’s employment catchment area (which extends rather further than Greater London). If not there would need to be a balancing increase in participation rates from the existing population, but the London Plan expects a significant increase in both population and employment. In theory therefore the additional crowding costs imposed by the new residential developments would be exactly the same as the additional costs imposed by the new office and retail developments but just attributing the cause to the trip origin rather than the destination. On an average basis it would be possible to show that each house in inner/outer London generates one commute trip per day (for example) and that 30% of them use rail as their main mode and hence calculate the crowding costs associated with that. The alternative view is that the houses themselves do not generate trips to central zone, it is the location of office premises in the central zone that create those trips. Residential developments are likely to generate significant numbers of local trips and local costs which would be picked up within the normal S106 negotiations but in terms of their impact on the strategic rail network it is not clear that they should bear any of those costs. If you look at it the other way around, if all the expected office developments were to be located in outer London around the M25 then the impact of future residential growth on the strategic rail network would be minimal, although the impacts on the highway network would be disastrous. Thus although a new office development in the central zone must attract inward commuters by rail, the same is not true of new residential developments, no matter where they are located. The rest of this chapter derives an impact per residence in a similar fashion to the previous chapters, despite the reservations expressed above. It follows the same format as that adopted for office developments: how many outbound commuter trips per residence/100sqm of residential space in am peak period? what proportion of commuter trips go to central zone from each origin area?

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.1.4

6.1.5

6.1.6

what is rail mode share of those trips? The analysis focuses on work trips from residential areas as these will have the most impact on rail congestion during the morning peak.

6.2
6.2.1

Trip generation for residential developments
There are fewer obvious data sources for trip generation from residential developments. Table 6.1 shows the results available from TRAVL.

25

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 6.1:

Residential trip generation rates per morning peak period per 100 square metres Area Greater London central zone inner outer TRAVL 0.35 1.2 1.2 0.2

Land Use Residential

6.2.2

Whereas the TRAVL results for the central zone and inner London appear sensible, those for outer London seem extraordinary. In four out of five houses in London noone leaves the house before 10am (the average sized property is just under 100sqm). Again the very low sample sizes seem to indicate that this data has limitations.

The general approach
6.2.3 A more general approach would say that: there are 3.19 million workers in London there are 3.02 million households, giving an average of 1.05 worker per household average house size in London is 93 square metres 85% of employees commute to work each day so the commuting trip generation rate per 100 square metres would be 0.96 It is possible that the commuting trip generation rate is slightly lower in outer London than in central zone or inner London, but it is not reasonable to draw that conclusion based on the TRAVL data. Hence a broadly constant 1 trip per 100 square metres of residential space seems a reasonable assumption.

6.2.4

Census data
6.2.5 It is possible to extrapolate trip generation rates for central, inner and outer London using the census data and assumptions on average floorspace per person, taken from a University of Oxford report exploring energy consumption in households 5 , and shown in the figure below. Figure 6.1: Average floor space by household size, England 2001 (sqm/person)

5

40% House, University of Oxford, 2005

26

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

6.2.6

By combining the information with the number of people per household, total residents economically active by LSOA and assuming a trip generation of 0.85 per employee, a trip generation rate by zone has been estimated and is shown in the table below. It shows that trip generation rates are higher in outer London than for residential areas in the central zone, which may seem counter-intuitive, but is due to the lower economic activity rates within the central zone. Table 6.2: Area central zone Inner Outer Inner/outer Trip generation residential developments Trips Per 100 sqm 0.73 0.75 0.87 0.82

6.3
6.3.1

Rail mode shares for residential
Rail mode shares for trips from residential land uses are available from TRAVL. They are much flatter than rail mode shares by destination Table 6.3: Land Use Residential TRAVL rail mode shares for residential trips morning peak Area Greater London central zone inner outer Travl Rail % Modal Share 27 39 31 22

6.3.2

The map below sets out rail mode share by LSOA for residential land uses, taken from the census data. It clearly shows that rail mode share is the highest for residents of inner London.

27

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure 6.2:

Rail mode share – residential land use

6.3.3

It is possible to derive rail mode shares by destination for residential land uses. The tables below set out the proportion of travel to work trips from central 6 , inner and outer London for each destination. Table 6.4: residence central zone Inner Outer Central 35% 61% 82% Inner 31% 36% 64% Proportion of travel to work trips by rail workplace Outer 41% 32% 7%

6.4
6.4.1

Proportion of trips to the central zone
In addition to the information on rail mode shares, the distribution of commuting trip destinations also needs to be taken into account. Trips from outer to outer London will generate almost no crowding costs whereas those to the central zone will impose far higher costs. Information on the proportion of residents in each of central zone, inner and outer London who commute to the different zones has been extracted from census data, and is shown in the table below.

6.4.2

Origin Destination data for travel to work trips is only available at ward and Borough level. Therefore for this analysis Central London is defined as Westminster and City of London Boroughs.

6

28

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 6.5: residence

Travel to work trips by destination workplace Outer 6% 10% 59%

central zone central zone inner outer 63% 27% 13%

Inner 28% 59% 19%

6.5
6.5.1

Conclusions
The crowding costs assumed for travel to the different zones are shown in table 6.6. All travel to the central zone has a crowding cost of 3, whereas travel to inner and outer London does not generate crowding. These assumptions are tested in the sensitivity analysis. Table 6.6: Origin central zone inner outer central zone 3 3 3 Inner 1 1 1 Crowding cost assumptions Destination Outer 1 1 1

6.5.2

The results for residential trip generation rates and quantification of impact imposed on the rail network are shown in table 6.7, derived from trip per 100 sqm, rail mode share, destinations and crowding cost assumptions. Table 6.7: origin central zone central zone inner outer 0.48 0.37 0.28 inner 0.06 0.16 0.11 Residential – impact imposed on rail network morning peak destination outer 0.02 0.02 0.04 total impact index 0.56 0.56 0.42

6.5.3

The results seem to indicate that developments within the central zone and inner London should be charged more than in outer London. This has the slightly strange conclusion that residential developments in the central zone should be charged the same as residential developments in inner London, even though those trips in the central zone have many more options of walk, cycle and bus available to them and their rail journeys are much shorter. However, the combination of trip destination and rail mode share by destination seems to highlight that residential developments in the central zone and inner London have the same impact on the rail network. There is also the issue of possibly double-counting rail trips and overestimating the impact index for developments: a new residential development may generate trips that are already taken into account for a new office development from where the demand for that work trip originates. Moreover due to the relatively low impact indices for residential developments compared to other land uses, our opinion is that it is probably inappropriate to place a S106 charge for strategic rail infrastructure on residential developments.

6.5.4

29

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

7
7.1
7.1.1

Crossrail stations outside the Central Area Zone
Introduction
In extending the S106 charges beyond the central zone they could cover whole areas of inner and outer London as described in the previous chapters, or they could be set up to cover specific areas around Crossrail stations, defined by 400m or 800m or 1,000 metre circles. This chapter is based on data for journeys to work only and focuses on office developments. As shown in the previous chapters the potential charges on office developments would be significantly higher than those for retail and much higher than those for residential. The questions which we seek to answer within this chapter are: are the zones around the future Crossrail stations different to the rest of inner and outer London? would those differences result in a significantly different impact to the rail network from new developments? would that justify different S106 charges?

7.1.2

7.1.3

7.2
7.2.1

Analysis of rail mode shares
This section finds that trips to work located within a 400m, 800m or 1000m buffer of Crossrail stations outside of zone 1 do have higher rail modal share than trips to work generally (outside of zone 1). The figure below shows the buffer zones at Crossrail stations used for the analysis. Figure 7.1: Buffer Zones in West London

7.2.2

The table below shows rail modal share for trips in the buffer region as compared to commuter trips to the outside of zone 1 generally.

30

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 7.1:

Rail mode share, Crossrail buffer region outside of Z1 against all non-Z1 rail modal share of trips to work 39% 34% 25% 18%

Area 400m buffer around non-central zone Crossrail stations 800m buffer around non-central zone Crossrail stations 1000m buffer around non-central zone Crossrail stations All LSOAs outside of Zone 1 7.2.3

This supports the argument that the areas around the Crossrail stations would generate additional rail trips and therefore additional impact to the rail network. It should be borne in mind however that the higher rail mode shares around stations would apply generally to areas around stations in inner and outer London and is in no way specific to those stations that Crossrail will serve in the future. The overall average mode shares include areas with very poor rail access so it might be possible to put forward an argument that such a charge should apply to areas around all stations rather than simply those that will in the future be Crossrail stations. The rail mode share of trips to work by buffer zones for all rail stations are broadly similar to the Crossrail stations, although lower for the 400m and 800m buffer zones. Therefore impact to the rail network if including all rail stations outside of central zone would be overall lower.

7.3
7.3.1

Impact on the rail network
Table 7.2 shows how the impact might change for office developments in inner and outer London by applying the ratio of the rail mode shares to overall averages shown in Table 7.1. Table 7.2: Impact to the rail network from office developments local to Crossrail stations Total impact (Index) 1.30 0.50 0.78 400m 2.2 2.8 1.1 1.7 800m 2.6 3.4 1.3 2.0 1,000m Trip 1.4 1.8 0.7 1.1

Area Mode Share ratio Inner Outer Inner/Outer 7.3.2

Thus it might be possible to justify some sort of local premium for office developments around Crossrail stations either against a general charge for inner and outer London or as the only charge in inner and outer London. The charges would still be significantly lower than those applicable to the central zone. The tables below sets out impact to the rail network from retail and residential developments local to Crossrail stations.

7.3.3

31

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 7.3:

Impact to the rail network from retail developments local to Crossrail stations Total impact (Index) 0.98 0.38 0.59 400m 2.2 2.1 0.8 1.3 800m 1.9 1.8 0.7 1.1 1,000m Trip 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.9

Area mode share ratio inner outer inner/outer Table 7.4:

Impact to the rail network from residential developments local to Crossrail stations Total impact (Index) 0.55 0.42 400m 2.2 1.2 0.9 800m 1.9 1.0 0.8 1,000m Trip 1.5 0.8 0.6

Area mode share ratio inner outer

7.4
7.4.1

Conclusions – stations outside central zone
It might be possible to implement a charge here, but our initial thoughts are that this would raise a number of issues and would not be the most appropriate approach. The main reasons we see for that are: the leakage factor in outer London will be very high, particularly where developers can move just a few hundred metres and avoid the charge; deterring developments from taking place around Crossrail stations would be a strange thing to do. A strong argument could be made for encouraging new developments around Crossrail stations to take advantage of the additional capacity provided; the arguments for a charge on retail and residential developments would be weaker than those on office developments.

32

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

8
8.1
8.1.1

Sensitivity analysis
Introduction
This section sets out a number of tests carried out to determine the impact of certain assumptions and use of different datasets on the final “impact index” results for office, residential and retail developments. The table below shows a summary of the impact indices calculated for office, residential and retail developments for central, inner and outer London. The sensitivity tests will be compared to these indices. Table 8.1: Summary table – impact indices central zone 9.43 7.23 0.56 Inner 1.230 0.98 0.56 Outer 0.50 0.38 0.42 I/O 800 M 2.00 1.1 0.9

8.1.2

Office Retail Residential

8.2
8.2.1

Rail mode share
The impact indices for office and retail developments have been based on rail mode share figures taken from the census data. Using the morning peak mode share from the London Travel Report slightly reduces the differences in impact indices between central zone and inner/outer London. Table 8.2: Impact Index using London Travel Report mode share central zone 9.00 6. 901.16 Inner 1.55 0.34 Outer 0.44

Office Retail

8.3
8.3.1

Crowding costs for residential land use
The assessment of crowding costs have shown that on average, rail trips to central zone produce three times as much crowding as trips to the rest of London. However, it is unclear what the crowding cost of travel to zones other than central zone is. For residential developments, we have assumed that all trips to central zone have a crowding cost that is three times greater than travel to inner and outer London (shown in table 6.6). However, it is probable that crowding costs vary depending on the origin of travel. For example, rail trips within the central zone may not contribute as much to crowding as trips to the central zone from inner London areas. The table below sets out alternative assumptions on crowding cost, keeping the overall assumption of crowding into central zone having three times more impact on crowding than travel to inner and outer London.

8.3.2

33

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 8.3: Origin central zone Inner Outer Average 8.3.3

Alternative crowding costs Destination Outer 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.0

central zone 1.8 3.5 3.7 3.0

Inner 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.0

When applying these alternative crowding ratios, the impact index for residential developments significantly changes, with impact being more important in inner London zones than in central zone. This would seem to produce more realistic results, comparable to rail mode use ratios presented in table 6.4. More research into crowding costs by trip origin would help refine the impact index of residential developments on the rail network. Table 8.4: Alternative impact index for Residential developments central zone 0.56 Inner 0.56 Outer 0.42

Base impact index Alternative impact index

0.35

0.64

0.53

8.4
8.4.2

Trip generation and densities assumptions
Office land use
Office densities are assumed to be the same in all of London. However, research has shown that office densities are higher in the central zone 7 . Our analysis has also assumed that densities in new buildings will increase in time. By assuming that densities in new build located in inner and outer London remain constant, trip generation for central zone offices will be higher than offices in the rest of London. The impact to the rail network of central zone office developments would therefore be 8.5 times greater than developments located in inner London, and 23 times greater than developments in outer London (compared to 7 and 19 times respectively).

8.4.3

7

Employment Densities: a full guide, English partnerships, July 2001

34

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Table 8.5: Area

Impact index commercial developments Trips Per 100 Sqm 4.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 Rail mode share 71% 29% 11% 17% Crowding cost per trip 3 1 1 1 Total impact (Index) 9.4 1.1 0.4 0.6

central zone Inner Outer Inner/Outer

Retail land use
8.4.4 The analysis of impact from retail developments has been based on morning peak shopping patterns. However, the impact of shopping trips on rail crowding may best be based on overall shopping trips during the day. By applying an average of morning and evening trip generation factors for shopping trips, the impact index of retail developments increases, to a level comparable to commercial developments for the central zone. Developments in the central zone produce a crowding impact that is 8.5 times greater than developments in inner London, compared to 7 times using morning peak shopping patterns. Table 8.6: Impact index retail developments central zone 7.23 8.86 Inner 0.98 1.02 Outer 0.38 0.39

Retail base Retail new trip generation for shopping trips

8.5
8.5.1

Conclusion
The sensitivity analysis has shown that a number of factors potentially affect the relative impact levels caused to the rail network for different types of land uses, which highlights the uncertainty of certain datasets and assumptions used which need to be accounted for when informing decisions on the structure of a S106 charge for Crossrail. However although the scale of the relative differences in impact in central, inner and outer London may vary, the overall relativity between those zones remain relatively consistent.

35

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

9
9.1
9.1.1 9.1.2

Conclusions
Relative values of impact
This report has calculated the relative crowding costs imposed on the rail network by different types of development in different locations within London. These values are summarised in Table 9.1. Table 9.1: Relative crowding impact by destination type and location central zone 9.43 7.23 0.56 Inner 1.30 0.98 0.56 Outer 0.49 0.38 0.42 I/O 800m 2.00 n/a n/a

Commercial Retail Residential 9.1.3

The relative values have been used to Determine appropriate charges for different land uses in different geographic areas; and test a number of alternative scenarios to be developed with different land uses and different geographic areas included or excluded. The indicator of impact is taken to be a general impact on crowding on the rail network. That is a fairly broad brush measure depending on three key variables: The level of trip generation in the morning peak period The rail mode share appropriate for that development type and that geographic locations The crowding impact associated with rail trips to different destinations within London There is detailed analysis underlying all of these variables, but there are also some inconsistencies in the data available and its accuracy which need to be understood and borne in mind.

9.1.4

9.1.5

36

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Appendix: Isle of Dogs analysis
Introduction
This section sets out the reasons why it maybe appropriate to have different levels of S106 contributions between the Isle of Dogs and CAZ. Three factors have been assessed: the extent of the rail capacity constraint on growth and how that varies between the Isle of Dogs and CAZ; the reliability/resilience of the public transport networks serving both areas; and, the scale of the change in public transport capacity that would be provided by Crossrail.

The Capacity Constraint On Growth
It is clear that the constraint imposed by public transport capacity (without Crossrail) to the Isle of Dogs will be much more severe than that imposed on CAZ overall. That arises because: employment is expected to grow much faster (proportionately) on the Isle of Dogs than it is in the CAZ and while rail capacity rises faster (proportionately) on the Isle of Dogs, it is not sufficient to counteract the employment growth access to the Isle of Dogs by bus, walk and cycle modes is restricted because of the lack of road crossings from south of the river

Employment Growth
The Isle of Dogs had some 44,000 jobs in 2001. That total has risen to 100,000 by 2008 and is expected to exceed 200,000 by 2020 although the London Plan gives a date of 2026 before this level of jobs is reached. CAZ employment growth is much lower. Table A1: Year 2001 2008 (estimate) 2020 (forecast) % growth 2001 to 2020 Employment growth, CAZ and Isle of Dogs Isle of Dogs Employment 44,000 100,000 200,000 +454% CAZ Employment 1,348,000 1,451,000 1,579,000 +17%

Access By Bus, Walk And Cycle
The Isle of Dogs is much less accessible by bus than the CAZ. Bus use in the Isle of Dogs is restricted to access from the North, and the number of bus routes which serve the area compared to central London is low ( Figures 4.1 and 4.2, taken from the TfL website, show the difference in the density of the bus network in the Isle of Dogs compared to Bank).

37

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Figure A1:

Isle of Dogs bus map

Figure A2:

Bank bus map

Bus trips to the Isle of Dogs have been relatively stable over the past 15 years, but this is in the context of massive growth in the number of trips by all modes, therefore the percentage of trips to

38

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

the Isle of Dogs by bus has fallen significantly, as shown in Figure 4.3, accounting for only around 5% of total trips to the area. In comparison, bus trips in central London have slightly increased in the past 10 years, along with the share of trips undertaken by bus compared to other modes of transport. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show travel mode shares for the Isle of Dogs and central London, taken from the 2007 London Travel Report. Figure A3: Isle of Dogs morning peak travel by mode of transport (source: London Travel Report, p 7)

Figure A4:

Peak morning travel into central London, by mode of transport (source: London Travel Report, p 5)

39

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

Thus, whereas the bus mode share to central London is increasing, that to the Isle of Dogs is decreasing. A higher proportion of future employment growth in the Isle of Dogs is likely to rely on rail than is the case for central London.

Changes To Rail Capacity
Crossrail has a bigger impact on rail capacity to the Isle of Dogs than it does on central London. Table 4.2 shows that Crossrail increases public transport capacity to the Isle of Dogs by 53%, compared to only 6% into zone 1. The reasons for this are: existing rail capacity to the Isle of Dogs is much smaller comprising only the JLE and DLR all Crossrail capacity to the Isle of Dogs is additional to the base situation, whereas most Crossrail capacity into central London (defined as Zone 1) replaces existing rail services (although there is additional capacity through train lengthening/ increasing frequencies) Table A2: Rail capacity in morning peak hour (PGC, 000s) Isle of Dogs 30 51 78 +53% Zone 1 448 517 550 +6%

2001 2016 (no Crossrail) 2016 (w Crossrail) Crossrail (% inc)

Nb capacity is defined as PGC, tfl’s standard measure of capacity that takes into account the number of seats on a train as well as an allowance for standing capacity at an acceptable density) The future year capacities used in Table 4.2 are consistent with the Crossrail economic appraisal. They assume significant increases in rail capacity prior to the introduction of Crossrail, including: the full PPP network growth assumptions on LUL; Thameslink 2000, East London Line Extension and CTRL domestic services implemented in full; DLR extensions to Woolwich Arsenal and Stratford International; significant capacity increases (train lengthening) on National Rail (NR) services; and bus services maintained at 2004 levels of supply. Rail services into the Isle of Dogs in 2016 without Crossrail would be more crowded than rail services in central London (according to the CLRL modelling results which are based on only 144,000 jobs on the Isle of Dogs). Table 4.3 shows that without Crossrail, in 2016, trips to the Isle of Dogs would spend 50% of their time at crowding levels over 100% of PGC, compared to 45% for central London, and that 94% of the Isle of Dogs trips would be affected by crowding levels over 100% of PGC, compared to 82% of central London trips. Table A3: Comparison of crowding levels in the Isle of Dogs and CAZ without Crossrail Percentage time spent at crowding levels greater than PGC 50.2% 45.2% Percentage of trips affected by crowding levels greater than PGC 94.0% 82.3%

Isle of Dogs Central London

Source: Crossrail Select Link Analysis. Nb this modelling is based on 144,000 jobs on Isle of Dogs, much less than currently expected.

40

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

In addition, the rail capacity constraint on the Isle of Dogs is in many ways more important than it is to central London, notably because: there are no alternative rail schemes being planned to increase capacity to the Isle of Dogs; and the Isle of Dogs is less accessible by walk/cycle modes because of its “island” nature

Reliability/Resilience
Regarding the reliability and resilience of public transport services to the Isle of Dogs and CAZ, it is clear that rail services to the Isle of Dogs are much less resilient to problems occurring on any single line. Currently the Isle of Dogs is served by JLE and DLR, with roughly 61% of rail users on the JLE and 39% on the DLR. If one of those lines goes down in the peak period, particularly if it is the JLE, then there are major problems getting people in and out of the Isle of Dogs. The 100,000 employees on the Isle of Dogs are largely dependent on just two lines and therefore highly sensitive to problems on either one. Whereas CAZ was able to cope with the Central Line being out of action for three months in 2003 by reassigning across a range of other lines, this would not be possible on the Isle of Dogs. It seems likely that this is already an issue with large employers and will increase in importance as employment grows. By providing a third line into the Isle of Dogs Crossrail significantly reduces that risk: with three lines the impact of any one of them failing is greatly reduced. Central London of course is served by all the LUL lines and all the main Network Rail commuter services, so dependence (as a destination) on any one service is much less. It is possible to show this effect by thinking about the length of time it would take to enable all employees in the CAZ and the Isle of Dogs to board trains. The numbers are illustrative based on gross rail capacity (not allowing for through passengers or non-commuters) assuming 70% of employees commute in the peak and assuming that all commuters travel by rail. On that basis Table 4.4 below shows the time taken to accommodate all employees.

Table A4:

Comparative resilience of central London and the Isle of Dogs to one line being out of action Central London Time % (hours) change Isle of Dogs Time % change (hours) 3.1 9.1 4.6

Without Crossrail With all lines Without one line (Northern / JLE) Without one line (Northern / DLR)

2.4 2.7 2.7

10.3% 10.3%

198% 50%

With Crossrail With all lines, using gross 2.3 2.0 capacity Without one line (Northern / 2.5 9.7% 3.5 76% JLE) Without one line (Northern / 2.5 9.7% 2.5 28% DLR) Thus removing one line from central London only increases the time taken to load all commuters by 10% in central London, whereas on the Isle of Dogs the time increases three-fold if the Jubilee Line

41

Crossrail Section 106 Contributions

was out of action. With Crossrail the Isle of Dogs is still much more sensitive to one line being out of service, but the time taken increases by 75% rather than 200%. It is worth noting that the problem applies almost equally to stations as it does to lines. Closure of Canary Wharf JLE station would have a similar effect to closure of the JLE itself. Closure of Bank station on the Central line would still allow access within reasonable walking distance at St Pauls or Liverpool Street but those options are not possible from the Isle of Dogs.

Conclusions
It seems clear that development on the Isle of Dogs is more directly constrained by a lack of public transport capacity without Crossrail, than is the case in the CAZ. That is the case because: the rail capacity constraint will bite harder on the Isle of Dogs because of the scale of planned employment growth; the Isle of Dogs is less easy to serve by bus, cycle and walk modes because of its island nature, again increasing reliance on additional rail capacity; and the dependence on only two lines provides reduced resilience to operational problems and reduced potential to reassign away from very crowded links.

42

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times