Transport for London

Heading goes here

The Importance of Interchange
Sub-heading text goes here
TfL Interchange Framework for improvements across London
Prepared by TfL Planning – Interchange
March 2012
Text page Style 1 body copy goes here.

MAYOR OF LONDON Transport for London

Heading goes here
Contents
Page

Sub-heading
3 Foreword text goes here
4 Executive summary
11 An Interchange Charter for London
12 Section 1 – Introduction
17 Section 2 – Background
31 Section 3 – Methodology
41 Section 4 – Results
54 Section 5 – Prioritisation and delivery
63 Section 6 – Conclusion

65 Appendix 1 Full interchange list by borough

96 Appendix 2 Framework assessment criteria details
101 Appendix 3 Bus and coach interchanges
105 Appendix 4 Strategic interchanges
Foreword
The Mayor wants to improve Londoners’
quality of life and central to this is the
experience of travelling around our city. We
will be investing billions in achieving this
through better transport – boosting capacity
on our transport network, delivering Crossrail
and a host of other measures to revolutionise
the experience of navigating the Capital.
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)
highlights the importance of seamless travel
and focuses on targeted improvements to key
interchanges in London. This work is managed
by Transport for London’s (TfL’s) dedicated
Planning department.
There are over 620 interchanges across
London ranging from major international
connections such as St Pancras, Heathrow
and City Airport to the vital local
interchanges providing accessibility to
goods, services and jobs. Many of these
interchanges require significant investment
to bring them up to a good standard and to
accommodate future growth.
Clearly we are all facing significant pressures
on our budgets. In this context, it is even
more important that we work together with
boroughs, operators and other stakeholders
to maximise the benefits of our investment
and have a coordinated approach to priorities
– all focused on improving the customer’s
experience. To do this it is necessary to
prioritise our investment.
This framework is the first step in this
process and provides a tool to allow TfL
and its stakeholders to prioritise where joint
investment of money and resources can
provide the biggest return for the customer.
We need to continue to plan for the longer
term, but not at the expense of short-term
improvements to journey quality, which
can often be achieved for excellent value in
partnership with operators and boroughs.
Information provision and links to local areas
are a good example of this.
It is hoped that this framework will also
provide important information to help
stakeholders make investment decisions.
Major economic and population growth will
continue in London and we need to ensure
that the transport system can support this
and also help meet social and environmental
goals. By making transfers as smooth,
seamless and stress-free as possible, and
bringing back a sense of place, we can
fundamentally improve the interchange
experience and expand passenger choice.
We must continue to work in partnership
to transform our interchange spaces, which
are so essential to making a better city. On
behalf of the Mayor and TfL we look forward
to continuing to work with stakeholders to
deliver improvements for our customers
across London.
Isabel Dedring
Deputy Mayor for Transport
3
Executive summary
Improving London’s interchanges is a key part
of the MTS, and TfL has a central role to play
in this.
The levels of convenience, comfort, information
provision, safety and reliability experienced
at interchanges are important factors in
Londoners’ perceptions of the quality and
attractiveness of the transport system.
Within the current economic climate it is
more important than ever that TfL spends
its limited resources in the right place,
making improvements that provide maximum
benefits for passengers.
Since publication of the 2002 Interchange
Plan, TfL has followed a strategic, network-
wide approach to improving interchanges.
This new framework updates that process
against the Mayor’s Strategic Policy
Framework for London.
Every weekday some six million people
interchange in London. Passenger research
indicates there is significant potential for
improved interchange facilities and integrated
operations at these locations, focused on
improving customer choice and experience.
This framework considers all rail,
Underground, Docklands Light Railway
(DLR), Tramlink and major bus and coach
interchanges in London. Its aim is to guide
TfL and stakeholders in the prioritisation of
investment and use of resources to achieve
the greatest benefits to customers, within
available funding.
The Mayor’s vision
for interchange
‘Interchanges, whether local or major
transport hubs, vastly expand the level
of accessibility to opportunities and
services offered by London’s transport
system by enabling multi-modal journeys
and those involving more than one public
transport service. The convenience,
comfort, information provision, safety
and reliability experienced at interchanges
are important determining factors in
Londoners’ perceptions of the quality and
attractiveness of the transport system.
Interchanges have a crucial role to play
in improving the efficiency of London’s
transport system, as well as the relative
attractiveness of public transport to the car
and tackling car dependency.
Interchanges not only enable travel
choices, but also provide opportunities
to create better places to live and
work, as well as support population and
employment growth in highly accessible
and sustainable locations.
Improved interchanges can support the
alleviation of crowding and congestion,
maximise access to businesses and
employment markets, improve connectivity,
improve passenger journey experiences and
help address key environmental and quality
of life concerns, such as air quality, health
and noise pollution.’
4
The Mayor’s Strategic Policy Framework calls
for integrated transport and efficient, high-
quality interchanges.
This Interchange Framework sets out TfL’s
analysis of the relative importance of each
interchange in helping to meet the Mayor’s
Strategic Policy Framework.
What is an interchange?
An interchange can serve different functions
– as a place to travel through or as an origin or
destination in its own right.
As a place to travel through, the ease of
movement and the number of travel choices
available is of prime importance. However, as
an origin or destination the access to town
centres, jobs and services, as well as quality
of the urban realm, are important.
The scale of interchange
in London
On a typical weekday 1.3 million people1
enter central London in the three-hour
morning peak (07:00 - 10:00). Of these, more
than one million use public transport for all or
part of their journey.
Of the rail journeys within London:
• Sixty per cent are on the Underground
• Thirty per cent are via National
Rail stations
• Twenty per cent involve a bus ride at
either end
• Fewer than seven per cent start or end
with a car journey
In addition, around 30 per cent of bus trips
involve an interchange to another bus and
many of these transfers are remote from rail
or Underground stations.
1 Travel in London Report 4
Across London, in this weekday morning
peak period alone, more than 1.25 million
interchanges take place.
Why we need to improve
our interchanges
Interchange improvements are designed to
make public transport more attractive to
existing and potential passengers. They
also enable the transport system to
contribute to broader economic, social and
environmental objectives.
With 624 interchanges across the Capital
including the Underground, National Rail,
Tramlink and DLR; more than 19,000 bus
stops, Riverbus, coach stops and taxi ranks;
plus the need to provide pedestrian and
cycling facilities, this is a complex task.
The Mayor has made it a particular priority
to improve the quality of Londoners’ overall
daily travel experience and the quality and
ease of interchange is key to delivering this.
A trip on public transport often involves
cycling or walking to the bus stop or
station, changing buses or trains, and
sometimes a significant cycle ride or walk
to the final destination. Mode changes can
be uncomfortable, inconvenient and time
consuming, and carry an inherent risk of delay
if any element of the connection fails. While
transport professionals may draw distinctions
between who is responsible for different parts
of the transport network, for the passenger
they are all part of the same journey. It is
essential that the various elements of public
transport are integrated so that passengers
are offered a seamless experience.
5
Purpose of an
updated framework
This framework does not say where
interchange improvements should take
place, nor does it commit TfL funds to any
particular project.
While improvements at individual
interchanges will have important benefits, a
coordinated attempt to develop ‘packages’ of
improvements could produce wider network
benefits, meeting several of the Mayor’s
transport objectives and aims of the London
Plan, EDS and sub-regional transport plans.

Instead, it is intended to be used as a tool to Opportunities for packages include

advise prioritisation by TfL and its partners to:
• Complement the MTS, The London Plan
and Economic Development Strategy (EDS)
• Help prioritise how available resources
should be used to develop and implement
particular interchange proposals and
provide guidance to other stakeholders
improvements to signage, information
provision, measures to make passengers feel
safer and facilities that enhance the network’s
accessibility. For example, a package that
improved interchanges on orbital links in
Inner and Outer London could help relieve
congestion by enabling people to bypass
central London.

• Help inform TfL’s level of involvement in

schemes being developed by other parties
• Provide a common benchmark for quality
across all categories of interchange and
complement projects that are already
under way
• Support development of existing, new
area and system-wide initiatives, including
facilities for walking and cycling, adjacent
to the interchanges
• Inform strategies for addressing the
congestion at central London termini
(strategic interchanges, MTS proposal 46)
as detailed in Appendix 4

6
Approach
This framework identifies and appraises
624 interchange locations. As well as those
in central London, this includes smaller
interchanges that play a significant local role
and locations where future development is
likely to change patterns of travel. Both of
these could easily be overlooked if a ‘broad
brush’ approach is taken.
The criteria for the analysis have been
established from the MTS goals, the London
Plan objectives and EDS proposals. To reflect
the wide-ranging role of interchanges, the
methodology strikes a balance between
a simple approach and one which deals
comprehensively with the range of issues that
affect interchange.
Interchange locations are being appraised
against two sets of criteria:
• Policy – the role that the interchange can
play in delivering the Mayor’s Strategic
Policy Framework
• Quality – the perceived quality of facilities
that currently exist at each location
This has enabled all interchanges to be
ranked in terms of importance in achieving
the Mayor’s aspirations for London. Also,
as the characteristics of interchanges differ
according to their role and location, they
have been put into one of five categories as
set out in the MTS and TfL’s sub-regional
transport plans.

Interchange category Definition (MTS transport geography Fig 4) Number of

A International
B National and inter-
regional
C London-wide
D Sub-regional
E Local
interchanges
International transport corridors including 6
airports and international rail and
coach stations
Inter-regional and national transport 40
corridors including National Rail and major
coach stations
London-wide transport corridors including 46
major rail and Tube stations, and major bus
and coach interchanges
Sub-regional transport corridors serving 169
metropolitan town centres and major
employment hubs and services
Local transport corridors serving local town 363
centres, residential areas, jobs and services

7
Summary findings
Top 20 interchanges in each
category for achieving policy goals
and objectives
This table shows the key interchanges in each
category that are helping to meet the Mayor’s
Strategic Policy Framework for London.
This is intended as a guide to inform the
prioritisation of future short, medium and
long-term interchange improvements and
should not hold back important projects that
have already been prioritised for development
or implementation.

Category A: International
King’s Cross Victoria Heathrow Terminals Heathrow Terminal 5
St. Pancras (rail and coach) 1, 2 & 3 London City Airport
Heathrow Terminal 4
Category B: National and inter-regional
Waterloo Blackfriars Elephant & Castle Bond Street
Liverpool Street Charing Cross Farringdon Marylebone
London Bridge Moorgate Fenchurch Street Canary Wharf
Paddington Tottenham Court Road Clapham Junction Whitechapel
Euston Cannon Street Stratford Woolwich Arsenal
Category C: London-wide
Bank/Monument East Croydon Finsbury Park City Thameslink
Oxford Circus Holborn Aldgate West Croydon
Green Park Piccadilly Circus Leicester Square Westminster
Baker Street Old Street Tower Hill Highbury & Islington
Embankment Barbican Vauxhall Aldgate East
Category D: Sub-regional
Shepherd’s Bush Mansion House Southwark Bethnal Green (Central)
(Central) Goodge Street Brixton Great Portland Street
Chancery Lane St. James’s Park Shoreditch High Street Camden Town
Mile End Notting Hill Gate Angel Lambeth North
St. Paul’s Russell Square Temple Hammersmith (District)
Covent Garden
Category E: Local
Battersea Park Queenstown Road Heron Quays Hackney Downs
Bethnal Green (Rail) Deptford Westferry Warwick Avenue
Dalston Kingsland Mornington Crescent Hoxton Drayton Park
Silver Street Clapton Northumberland Park Stoke Newington
Charlton Essex Road Alexandra Palace Westbourne Park

8
Delivery, funding
and monitoring
Prioritising
In considering the opportunities and priorities
for investment in interchange, there are
inevitably many factors that cannot be
taken into account in a formal assessment.
Not least is the need to react to changing
circumstances, including the appraisal of
emerging schemes and building on existing
initiatives and strategies.
By providing a policy framework for
prioritisation it is hoped TfL and stakeholders
can target limited funds and resources to
greatest effect.
Developing and funding
TfL has an established process for prioritising
interchange schemes that reviews ‘live’ data
such as deliverability, funding, development
opportunities and urgency, as well as policy fit.
Stakeholders will be able to use the analysis
in this framework to guide their own priorities
and investment planning processes.
Partnership is needed when considering the
development and funding of improvements.
With current economic pressures likely to
affect investments for several years to come, it
is even more important that stakeholders work
together to gain maximum value for money.
In the foreword to TfL’s Interchange Best
Practice Guidelines (IBPG) published in 2009,
Kulveer Ranger, then Transport Advisor to the
Mayor, said:
‘Interchanges by their nature require
cooperation, and Network Rail, the London
boroughs, developers and others are all
investing in and around interchange zones
in order to make them better places to live,
work and play in, as well as travel through.
We must continue to work in partnership to
transform our interchange spaces which are
so essential to making a better city.’
TfL’s approach is to engage relevant
stakeholders in the development of
integrated, multi-modal transport and land
use plans for any prioritised interchange
improvements. These site-specific plans
help to guide longer-term investment and
attract funding, while enabling stakeholders
to remain focused on short to medium-term
benefits. Assembling multi-party funding and
other forms of financing, such as grants, is
vital to ensure maximum value and benefits.
Monitoring improvements
Customer perception is an important
measure of a good interchange. Mystery
shopper and customer satisfaction surveys
will be used to assess passengers’ views
of interchange improvements and will be
monitored to guide new schemes.
To help monitor interchange improvements
TfL relies largely on information from its
partners. Equally, this kind of support is vital
where interchanges are deteriorating, so TfL
can keep track of future improvement priorities
and measure progress against this framework.
9
Conclusion
London has one of the oldest public transport
networks in the world, and improving and
developing interchanges in a mature and
densely developed city is a complex task.
Interchange locations are often physically
constrained, and linking passenger facilities
that may have been previously developed in
a piecemeal fashion, sometimes over several
decades, can be costly and difficult.

Partnership is a key feature of any successful

interchange improvement and it is hoped
that the ranking set out in this framework will
contribute to dialogue between transport
providers, users and local authorities. At the
same time, TfL accepts it must take the lead
in ensuring improvements are achieved.

Improving interchange is never easy.

Complexity is an inevitable feature of
interchange work. TfL believes this challenge
is worth taking on and looks forward to
working with others to ensure a high-
quality, fully integrated transport system is
established for the benefit of passengers.

10
An Interchange Charter for London
A number of stakeholders, in developing
the 2009 IBPG, have adopted the following
Interchange Charter for London:
‘We agree to work together in partnership
to identify and implement opportunities to
reduce the physical effort and uncertainty
that passengers may experience when
making an interchange in London. Our aim
is to ensure that, by minimising the barriers
experienced by a passenger transferring
between services and modes, the transport
network is perceived as a coherent and
integrated system.’
With these aims in mind we undertake to:
• Improve our understanding of what
people find difficult about interchanging,
and to work towards meeting people’s
reasonable expectations for tackling
these difficulties
• Collaborate in the identification,
evaluation, development and
These stakeholders include:
• The Association of Train Operating
Companies
• The Commission of Architecture and
Built Environment
• Crossrail
• The Department for Transport (DfT)
• The Greater London Authority (GLA)
• The London Climate Change Agency
• London Councils
implementation of improvement
schemes, ensuring that resources are
targeted on those schemes that achieve
the greatest benefits
• Work together to improve quality
by identifying, encouraging and
implementing best practice in the design
and management of interchanges,
achieving consistency wherever possible
• Provide clear and consistent information
to improve people’s ability to plan
journeys that involve an interchange,
and to cooperate to provide clear and
reassuring wayfinding information while
the interchange is being made
• Integrate interchanges into the urban
fabric to provide wider benefits wherever
this can be achieved in harmony with
meeting transport needs
• The London Development Agency (LDA)
• London Travelwatch
• Network Rail
• TfL Borough Partnerships
• TfL Corporate
• TfL Interchange Team
• TfL London Rail
• TfL London Underground
• TfL Office of the Commissioner
• TfL Surface Transport
11
1. Introduction
About this document
The Mayor’s Strategic Policy Framework calls
for integrated transport and efficient, high
quality interchanges. This aim is set out in
the framework’s three key documents –
the MTS (2010), EDS (2010) and the London
Plan (2011).
This document considers all rail, Underground,
DLR, Tramlink and major bus and coach
interchanges in London and sets out the
relative importance of interchange in delivering
the Mayor’s Strategic Policy Framework.
With drivers such as customer opinion,
network changes, quality of life issues and
significant growth and regeneration, there
is almost unlimited scope for interchange
improvements. However, with limited funding
and resources it is vital to focus on areas
where TfL can ensure maximum value.
The purpose of TfL’s Interchange Framework
is to provide a ranking of London’s 624
interchanges by assessing:
a. The role and importance of each in
delivering the Mayor’s Strategic
Policy Framework
b. A consideration of the customer’s view
of the quality of interchanges
The policy context and the background to the
development of this framework are described
in Section 2. The methodology adopted to
carry out this review is set out in Section 3
and Section 4 contains the results.
Section 5 outlines TfL’s continuous process
for using this analysis and establishing
priorities for short, medium and long-term
improvements. This structure is illustrated
in Figure 1.1.
12
Figure 1.1 – The Interchange Framework – structure and role

• MTS and sub-regional transport plans

• London Plan
Strategic • Economic Development Strategy
policies

Section 2

• Provides a ranking of the relative importance

of interchange locations in terms of
Interchange mayoral strategic policy
Framework

Sections 3 and 4

• A ‘live’ process to advise TfL and stakeholders

on priorities for interchange improvements

Prioritisation

Section 5

• Partnership working
• Business planning/funding
• Scheme development and delivery
Delivery

Section 5

13
The role of the
Interchange Framework
Since publication of the 2002 Interchange
Plan, TfL has taken a strategic, network-wide
approach to improving interchanges
in London.
A number of schemes have been promoted in
partnership with the London boroughs, while
others have emerged as part of proposals
to develop Underground, National Rail or
bus facilities. Some schemes have arisen in
conjunction with property developments.
This updated Interchange Framework is
not prescriptive; it does not say where
improvements should take place, nor does it
commit TfL funds to any particular project.
It is intended to ‘help TfL and the boroughs to
prioritise how available resources should be
put into the development and implementation
of particular interchange proposals’2.
It provides information for prioritisation and
helps in business planning, but does not offer
a list of priority schemes (Fig 1.1 sets out the
role of the framework in the prioritisation
and delivery of improvement schemes).
The framework also presents a useful
categorisation of London’s interchanges.
Its scope is limited to interchanges that are
within Greater London or, if outside, comprise
GLA infrastructure. It is recognised that a
number of locations outside this area can
play a role in facilitating journeys that either
originate or end within the GLA boundary, but
these fall outside the scope of this framework.
2 MTS, May 2010 – chapter 7.3
Integration with other TfL
strategies and plans
TfL is an integrated transport authority
responsible for all aspects of public
transport in London. This gives TfL a unique
opportunity to evaluate interchange across
the Capital in a systematic way.
This framework is intended to be used as
a tool to advise prioritisation by TfL and its
partners to:
• Complement the MTS, London Plan
and EDS
• Help prioritise how available resources
should be used to develop and implement
particular interchange proposals and
provide guidance to other stakeholders
• Help inform TfL’s level of involvement in
schemes being developed by other parties
• Provide an indication of passengers’
perceptions of current quality across all
categories of interchange and complement
projects already under way
• Support the development of existing, new
area and system-wide initiatives, including
facilities for walking and cycling that are
adjacent to the interchanges
• Inform strategies for addressing the
congestion at central London termini
(strategic interchanges, MTS proposal 46)
Fig 1.2 shows the Interchange Framework in
context with other TfL strategies and plans.
14
Partnership with
other stakeholders
The evaluation of key interchanges in this
framework is intended to be objective,
consistent and transparent.

Stakeholders will be able to use the analysis

to guide their own priorities and investment
planning processes.

Partnership is needed when considering

the development and funding of
improvements. With current economic
pressures likely to affect investments for
several years to come, it is even more
important that stakeholders work together
to gain maximum value for money.

This framework sets out how these

objectives can be achieved.

15
Figure 1.2 – The Interchange Framework in the wider context

Strategic Policy Framework

MTS The London Plan EDS

Sub-regional transport plans

North South East West Central

The Interchange Framework

Prioritisation TfL
‘dynamic planning’
Network Rail/TOCs*

Investigation/feasibility DfT
Delivery
partners GLA/LDA
‘Masterplanning’ and
implementation of Boroughs
phased improvements
BIDs**/local business
Short- Medium- Long-
term term term Developers

33 Local Implementation Plans Investment planning and delivery

(LIPs)/TfL Business Plan of interchange portfolio

* TOCs – train operating companies

** BIDs – Business Improvement Districts

16
2. Background

Destination

Origin Interchange Origin

Destination

17
 The MTS, chapter 5.10
‘Interchanges, whether local or major
transport hubs, vastly expand the level
of accessibility to opportunities and
services offered by London’s transport
system by enabling multi-modal journeys
and those involving more than one public
transport service. The convenience,
comfort, information provision, safety and
reliability experienced at interchanges are
important determining factors in Londoners’
perceptions of the quality and attractiveness
of the transport system. Interchanges
have a crucial role to play in improving the
efficiency of London’s transport system, as
well as the relative attractiveness of public
transport to the car and tackling
car dependency.
Interchanges not only enable travel
choices, but also provide opportunities
to create better places to live and work as
well as support population and
employment growth in highly accessible
and sustainable locations.
Improved interchanges can support the
alleviation of crowding and congestion,
maximise access to businesses and
employment markets, improve connectivity,
improve passenger journey experiences and
help address key environmental and quality
of life concerns such as air quality, health
and noise pollution’.

Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe
the mayoral policies that drive interchange
improvement. It also defines what is
considered an interchange, and describes how
they contribute to quality of life, transport
network integration and seamless journeys.

As well as enabling travel choice, interchanges

provide opportunities to create better places
to live and work as well as travel through.

Therefore an interchange is considered to

be an origin or destination in addition to
being a connection in the transport network.
Improving interchange is key to the quality
of life of passengers and promotes the use
of public transport. By making journeys
more attractive and interchange easier,
passengers can travel around the network
more efficiently, congestion is reduced and
the service is enhanced. Improvement to
interchange in London has therefore been
identified as one of the Mayor’s top priorities.

18
The scale of interchange
in London
On a typical weekday 1.3 million people3
enter central London in the three-hour
morning peak (07:00 - 10:00). Of these, more
than one million use public transport for all or
part of their journey.
Of the rail journeys within London:
• Sixty per cent are on the Underground
• Thirty per cent are via National Rail
stations
• Twenty per cent involve a bus ride at
either end
• Fewer than seven per cent start or end
with a car journey
In addition, around 30 per cent of bus trips
involve an interchange to another bus and
many of these are transfers remote from rail
or Underground stations.
Across London, in this weekday morning
peak period alone, more than 1.25 million
interchanges take place.
3 Travel in London Report 4
Why we need to improve
our interchanges
Interchange improvements are designed to
make public transport more attractive to
existing and potential passengers. They also
enable the transport system to contribute to
the achievement of broader economic, social
and environmental objectives.
In 2009 TfL published its updated IBPG. In
his foreword then Transport Advisor to the
Mayor, Kulveer Ranger, said:
‘We want to fundamentally improve
the interchange experience and expand
passenger choice, by making transfers
as smooth, seamless and stress-free
as possible. London has some fantastic
interchanges but if your interchange is
crowded and unclear, impeded by clutter
and poor signage, chances are that you
will take that stress into the rest of
your day.
Interchanges by their nature require
cooperation, and we must continue to
work in partnership to transform our
interchange spaces which are so essential
to making a better city.’
19
Policy context – the Mayor’s
Strategic Policy Framework
There are three key documents that form
the Mayor’s Strategic Policy Framework
for London:
• The MTS
• The London Plan
• The EDS
In this suite of strategies the Mayor presents
a fully coordinated approach to London’s
spatial development, economy, planning and
transport, supported by a common economic
evidence base.
The goals of the MTS
The MTS sets the background for all of TfL’s
activities. Improving interchange forms an
integral part of this.
The six key goals of the MTS are to:
• Support economic development and
population growth
• Enhance the quality of life for all Londoners
• Improve the safety and security of
all Londoners
• Improve transport opportunities for
all Londoners
• Reduce transport’s contribution to climate
change and improve its resilience
• Support delivery of the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games and
its legacy
While interchanges can contribute in some
way to these goals, one particular proposal
sets out the aims for customer experience at
an interchange:
Proposal 45
The Mayor, through TfL, and working with
Network Rail, the train operating companies,
London boroughs and other stakeholders,
will improve the customer experience and
physical accessibility at interchanges across
London through the application of the
principles set out by the TfL Interchange
Best Practice Guidelines of ‘efficiency’,
‘useability’, ‘understanding’ and ‘quality’ to
all interchange schemes in London.
Such measures include:
a) Provision of consistent and enhanced
travel information
b) Improved walking and cycling facilities
at, and on routes to, public transport
stations and stops
c) Improved integration of public transport
services in London, both in terms of
service planning and physical location
d) Improved efficiency, effectiveness
and quality of interchanges across
London to further integrate London’s
transport system
e) Provision of consistent customer service
delivery standards
f) Assurance that interchange facilities have
sufficient capacity to meet travel demand
20
The objectives of the
London Plan (2011)
The Mayor’s London Plan sets out an
integrated economic, environmental,
transport and social framework for the Capital
over the next 20 to 25 years. It is aligned with
the MTS and contains six key objectives for
the development of London, many of which
are directly relevant to interchange.
One of its objectives is to make London a
city where it is easy, safe and convenient for
everyone to access jobs, opportunities and
facilities, and improving interchange has a
vital role to play.
By improving access to jobs and services,
interchanges enable the public transport
system to contribute to the achievement
of broader economic, social and
environmental objectives.
The plan calls for a strategic approach:
Policy 6.1
‘The Mayor will work with all relevant
partners to encourage closer integration of
transport and development by (amongst
other things)...
‘...improving interchange between
different forms of transport, particularly
around major rail and Underground
stations, especially where this will enhance
connectivity with outer London.’
Policy 6.4 outlines a number of transport
schemes aimed at improving connectivity,
such as Crossrail and the London
Overground network, all of which will
involve, to some degree, the need for
improved interchange facilities.
Policy 6.4
‘High quality facilities for easy interchange
have a major role to play both in ensuring
effective working of transport networks
and in place-shaping where they are
located. They can also provide new
development opportunities, enabling
efficient use of land in places with high
levels of accessibility – and for new
development to help contribute to the cost
of the new infrastructure. Realising all these
benefits requires close working between
transport providers, local authorities and
where appropriate, the Mayor.’
The EDS proposals
This strategy sets out the Mayor’s vision for
London to be the best city in the world. It
has been developed in tandem with the MTS
and the London Plan and sets out how this
vision can be achieved with respect to the
Capital’s economy.
The EDS recognises the need to provide
accessible transport to places with:
‘...strategic economic functions of greater
than sub-regional importance and with
potential for growth.’4
The Capital’s essential role in the UK
economy was recognised by the Government
in October 2010’s Spending Review, when
it protected investment for vital transport
projects in London.
With improved interchange opportunities,
Crossrail, Europe’s largest infrastructure rail
project, will provide a significant boost to
the UK economy and dramatically improve
capacity and rail links in the South East5.
4 EDS 2010 – action 5B
5 TfL Annual Report and Statement of
Accounts 2010/11
21
What is an interchange?
TfL Interchange Best Practice
Guidelines (2009)
‘Inter-modal public transport interchange
occurs when people transfer between
National Rail, Underground, Docklands
Light Railway, Croydon Tramlink, bus, taxi,
coach or Riverbus services.’
An interchange can serve different roles – as
a place to travel through or as an origin or
destination in its own right.
A total of 624 interchanges have been
identified in this framework and Appendix 1
contains the full list and analysis by borough.
As a place to travel through, the ease of
movement and the number of travel choices
available is of prime importance. However,
as an origin or destination, access to town
centres, jobs and services, as well as quality
of the urban realm, are vital.
Some interchanges are ‘formal and
advertised’ in that they are sign-posted and
marked on maps. Others are less formal and
occur between separate rail, Tube, tram,
coach or bus stops without any special
facilities being provided.
The definition of interchange can be
interpreted narrowly or widely. One
might consider only the major railway
stations, while the other extreme includes
consideration of all bus stops (more than
19,000 locations). In the context of this
framework a relatively tight definition has
been taken, focusing on motorised public
transport modes. It includes all rail stations
(National Rail, Underground and DLR), tram
stops, Riverbus stops and coach termini,
together with their nearest bus stops and
taxi ranks. In addition, 15 major ‘bus to bus’
interchanges, where there is no adjacent rail
infrastructure, are identified (see Appendix 3).
Interchanges have been assessed on what
they are, or could be, delivering against the
Mayor’s strategies, not because they are
linked to a specific scheme. For example,
Paddington station is considered a single
location, even though many different types
of interchange take place and a variety of
schemes are being delivered there.
Interchange categorisation
Interchanges differ in their character and
role. While a primary aim of this framework
is to appraise all interchanges in an objective
manner, account needs to be taken of
these differences to ensure a ‘like for
like’ comparison. This has been done by
categorising interchanges.
The categories are defined at five levels –
A to E – and are taken from the transport
geography outlined in chapter 3 of the MTS.
They are shown in Table 2.1.
This allows ‘similar’ interchanges to be
compared alongside one another. Various
criteria have been considered in determining
which category an interchange best fits into,
including the level of service available and
its location.
.
22
Table 2.1 – Interchange categorisation

Interchange category Definition Number of

A International
B National and inter-regional
C London-wide
D Sub-regional
E Local
(MTS transport geography Fig 4) interchanges
International transport corridors 6
including airports and international rail
and coach stations
Inter-regional and national transport 40
corridors including National Rail and
major coach stations
London-wide transport corridors 46
including major rail and Tube stations,
and major bus and coach interchanges
Sub-regional transport corridors serving 169
metropolitan town centres and major
employment hubs and services
Local transport corridors serving local 363
town centres, residential areas, jobs
and services

The types of journey that

involve interchange
Across the whole of London, in the weekday
morning peak period alone, more than 1.25
million interchanges take place. Figure 2.1
shows all London’s interchanges by category.
Rail and Underground journeys
Of the rail journeys within London, more than
60 per cent take place on the Underground
and 30 per cent are via National Rail or
London Overground stations. One in five rail
journeys involve a bus ride at either end, and
one in 15 starts or ends with a car journey.
Bus journeys
Journeys where the bus is the main mode
are generally much shorter than rail journeys.
Around 30 per cent involve an interchange to
another bus and the pattern of interchange
locations is more dispersed than rail
interchanges. Major ‘bus to bus’ interchanges
tend to be in places, such as suburban town
centres, where a number of routes converge.
The scale of bus interchange across London
is very significant. Appendix 3 contains more
detailed information.
DLR journeys
Interchange with the DLR occurs, at dedicated
facilities, on the Underground, London
Overground and National Rail services. The
DLR also serves London City airport directly.
In addition, there are bus stations and other
locations where passengers transfer between
bus and DLR.
Tram journeys
Interchange with Croydon Tramlink occurs, at
dedicated facilities, on London Underground
and National Rail services, and at bus stations
and on-street stops where passengers
transfer between bus and tram.

23
Riverbus journeys
Many of the piers on the Riverbus service
routes are located close to Underground,
bus, DLR and National Rail stations. However,
the link between the two is often on-street,
without dedicated facilities other than signage.
Coach journeys
Large numbers of passengers use London’s
major coach stations, for instance Victoria and
Heathrow. Interchange also occurs at smaller
dedicated facilities such as Golders Green,
and at informal on-street locations where
coach routes meet Underground or National
Rail routes. Coach interchange provides access
to national and international networks from
some of the smaller rail and Tube stations (see
Appendix 3 for further details).
6 Travel in London Report 4
Taxi journeys
Taxis also have an important part to play at
many interchanges. In particular they are
often used to fill gaps in the public transport
network at a particular location, or because of
the time of day the journey is being made.
Walking and cycling-based journeys
It is estimated that cycling has grown by
around 150 per cent in the last 10 years, with
an estimated 540,000 journeys made by bike
on an average day6.
This, along with the fact that almost 25 per
cent of all journeys in London are made on
foot, indicates that walking and cycling are
very real options for people. It is vital that
interchanges cater for this need.
24
Figure 2.1 – All interchanges by category

25 26
Creating efficient and
integrated journeys
The Mayor’s priority is to improve the
standard of Londoners’ overall daily travel
experience and the quality and ease
of interchange.
A trip on public transport often entails a cycle
or walk to the bus stop or station, changing
buses or trains, and sometimes a significant
cycle or walk to the final destination. These
changes can be uncomfortable, inconvenient,
time consuming and carry an inherent risk
of delay. While transport professionals may
draw distinctions between who is responsible
for different parts of the transport network
(eg road, rail or bus), for the passenger they
are all part of the same journey. It is essential
that all public transport is integrated so that
passengers are offered a seamless experience.
Public transport must continually improve if it
is to attract passengers away from the private
car in London. It is vital that inconvenience
and delay at interchanges are reduced.
Research indicates that a person’s dislike of
interchange is influenced by the type of trip
being made, the nature of the interchange
and the type of passenger involved. People
who rarely use public transport, are mobility-
impaired, or are making a particular journey
for the first time, are likely to have a
particularly strong aversion to interchange.
The ease of use of interchanges has a major
impact on aspects such as tourism. The needs
of tourists at interchanges can differ from
those of regular users, for example there is a
greater requirement for detailed wayfinding
and space to consult maps and make onward
journey decisions. These considerations are
vital in shaping interchanges and delivering
benefits for customers as well as the
economy. (More than 26 million visitors come
to London every year and the tourism industry
has a key role to play in shaping the Capital’s
economy. It is worth more than £16bn per
annum and employs 285,000 people7.)
Removing barriers
The responsibility of managing any
given interchange often falls to several
organisations. If there is poor coordination
and differing priorities between these bodies,
it can result in passengers perceiving a
change in quality as they pass between areas
controlled by different organisations. This
may make the journey feel difficult, complex
and disjointed. In these circumstances, the
interchange experience is far from seamless
and the level of ease that public transport
offers will compare unfavourably with the
door-to-door convenience of the private car.
Significant improvements have been made in
the last few years in reducing these barriers,
not least the introduction of the Oyster card
and the Legible London wayfinding scheme
for pedestrians.
Removing the boundaries between the
different service providers will continue to
pose challenges. TfL has direct responsibility
for most of the networks in London, though
the National Rail network remains outside
its remit. Many organisations in both the
public and private sectors are involved in
planning and providing transport facilities and
services, so partnership working will continue
to be essential.
7 LDA: London Tourism Action Plan 2009-2013
27
Working with partners
If passengers are to be offered seamless
journeys the transport providers must
work together to prioritise, plan and deliver
improvements to interchanges.
This relationship is defined in the Interchange
Charter. TfL will continue to support this
charter to enhance the integration of public
transport journeys by:
• Improving journey quality at interchanges
including convenience, comfort, security
and accessibility
• Minimising delay and unreliability
of interchanges
• Reducing the need for interchange where
there is sufficient demand to justify new
routes or services
Delivering improvements
Identifying priorities for action
There is an almost unlimited scope for
improving interchanges, but funds and
resources are limited. It is therefore necessary
to prioritise investment. This framework
provides a ranking of the relative importance of
interchanges in terms of delivering the Mayor’s
Strategic Policy Framework (Section 4).
This information alone does not provide a
definitive list of investment priorities. Instead,
a number of other considerations need to be
taken into account by TfL and stakeholders
before funds and resources are committed.
TfL’s Transport Planning Steering Group
regularly reviews prioritisation. A large
amount of work is already under way
to develop improvements to particular
interchanges in London.
Figure 2.2 indicates locations where TfL is
leading, supporting or otherwise involved in,
schemes to improve interchange. These range
from projects under construction to those
where only initial plans have been drawn up.
Financial constraints and deliverability
By providing the framework to help identify
priorities, it is hoped TfL and stakeholders
can target limited funds and resources to best
effect, to continue delivering the greatest
benefits for passengers.
With current economic pressures likely to
affect investments for several years to come,
it is even more important that stakeholders
work together to identify design and delivery
synergies and pool funding for targeted
schemes to gain maximum value for money.
TfL’s approach is to engage relevant
stakeholders in the development of
integrated, multi-modal transport and land
use plans for prioritised interchanges. These
site-specific plans will help inform longer-
term investment and attract funding, while
enabling stakeholders to deliver short to
medium-term benefits for passengers.
Multi-party financing and the leverage of
other funds, such as grants, are vital to
ensure maximum value, and improve the
chances of delivering the necessary benefits
in a reasonable timeframe.
Funding for improvements in the short, medium
and long-term may be provided by a range of
different sources. These could include:
• TfL Business Plan investment
• Local authorities (by making use of funding
streams from TfL or the DfT, Section
106 agreements and/or the Community
Infrastructure Levy if it is introduced, plus
other council resources)
• Major developers
• Local Business Improvement Districts (BIDs)
• Major scheme funding (such as Crossrail,
Thameslink or high speed rail)
It is important to understand that, in most
cases, interchange schemes will not be the
sole responsibility of one party, either in
terms of planning, funding or implementation,
so the need to work together is critical.
28
Figure 2.2 – Current interchange schemes

29 30
3. Methodology
The process for assessing the current
importance of 624 interchanges to the
delivery of the Mayor’s Strategic Policy
Framework is summarised schematically in
Figure 3.1 on page 32.
In developing the methodology a balance
has been struck between creating a simple
approach and one which deals with the range
of issues affecting interchange.
Interchange ranking
Interchange locations have been appraised
against two sets of criteria:
• Policy – the role that the interchange can
play in the delivery of the MTS, the London
Plan and the EDS
• Quality – the perceived quality of facilities
which currently exist at each location
Table 3.1 gives a summary of the interchange
criteria being used for the analysis. Further
details are contained in Appendix 2.
As mentioned previously, an interchange can
serve as both a place to travel through or as
an origin or destination in its own right.
In developing an approach to appraising an
interchange, it is necessary to consider how
improving interchange helps to enhance the
city’s transport system, as well as its role in
supporting growth, the economy and quality
of life.
Policy criteria
The three key documents that form the
Mayor’s Strategic Policy Framework, as set
out in Section 2, are the MTS, the London
Plan and the EDS.
The goals, policies and objectives of these
strategies provide the basis for the interchange
policy criteria. These have been used to
produce a ranking of the key interchanges for
the delivery of mayoral policy.
Quality criteria
The importance of interchanges to London
is not the only consideration in determining
whether improvements may be required.
Some consideration needs to be given to
people’s perception of the quality of the
current facilities at an interchange.
A second set of criteria has therefore been
developed. These are the interchange
quality criteria.
A scoring system for the interchanges has
been designed to be robust, consistent
and ensure subjectivity is minimised. The
definition of scores to determine how
interchanges rate against each of these
criteria is described on page 33.
31
Figure 3.1 – Interchange Framework appraisal process

Scoring mechanisms
Individual
Ranking
scores

+10 1
Policy objectives:
MTS, EDS,
London Plan
0 624

Interchange Quality Quality gap: Interchange

locations: objectives: High Framework:
Mapped to MTS MTS, EDS, London Medium Policy and
transport network Plan, IBPG Low quality overview
categories and ranking

Sub-regional transport plans:

Challenges
Objectives

Live dynamic
planning:
TfL’s prioritisation
process
Deliverability,
Locations are ranked by ‘policy’ and urgency, transport
‘quality gap’*. Any priorities for development,
improvements are developed in a dynamic capacity/crowding,
process by considering this alongside journey experience
various implementation criteria.

* The ‘quality gap’ is explained in more detail on page 37.

32
Table 3.1 – Interchange criteria mapped to mayoral policies and proposals

Policy criteria
Interchange Link to Link to Link to EDS The contribution of interchange
criteria MTS London Plan proposals
proposals policies
IP1 Supporting 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1.1, 2.7, 1A, 4F, 5A, Crowding is a symptom of the
sustainable 11, 15, 16, 2.10, 2.11, 5B, 5G imbalance between capacity and
growth 17, 19, 22, 2.15, 4.1, demand, and as such can be a
46, 60, 84 4.7, 6.1, hindrance to growth.
6.3, 6.4 A well designed interchange
environment can help ensure the
interchange itself is not a capacity
constraint.
Such capacity is particularly
needed around important centres
and in central London generally.
IP2 Improving 4, 6, 14, 2.3, 2.8,   Provides interchange
transport 19, 23, 26, 4.11, 6.1, opportunities across modes,
connectivity 27, 28, 30, 6.4 particularly at strategic
36, 46, 49 interchanges, potentially relieving
crowded links.
Improves connections between
modes/lines, reducing travel
times and specifically time spent
at interchanges.
IP3 Promoting 30, 49 2.7, 2.16, 1A, 2F, 4F, Improves access to jobs through
businesses 2.17, 4.1, 5D better interchange opportunities.
4.5, 6.1, 6.4 Enhances movement of people
and goods particularly in tourist/
business locations.
Provides a well designed
interchange environment to assist
tourist movements.
IP4 Supporting 15, 84 2.3, 2.7, 2F, 4A, 5D, Enhances connectivity to
regeneration 2.13, 2.14 5E, 5F reduce severance.
Targets improvements in deprived/
regeneration areas to support
anticipated growth.
IP5 Facilitating 51, 53, 56, 2.7, 2.8, 2H Removes physical barriers for
active travel 57, 59, 82, 2.15, 6.9, pedestrians/cyclists through
115 6.10 better street design and improving
accessibility to cycling network/
open spaces.
Cycling facilities/wayfinding at
interchanges to encourage journey
stages to be made by bicycle.

33
Quality criteria
Interchange criteria Link to Link to Link The contribution of interchange
MTS London to EDS
proposals Plan proposals
policies
IP6 Improving 13, 17, 18, 2.7, 2.15, 2G Provides quality interchange
journey 21, 41, 42, 6.1, 7.5 facilities.
experience 43, 45, 59, Maintains the condition of
60, 82, 83, interchange facilities.
114 Ensures quality interchange
environment, clear wayfinding and
better information provision.
IP7 Improving 13, 42, 43, 2.8 2J Ensures the secure and safe
safety and 59, 73, 77, nature of an interchange through
security 78, 80 adequate lighting, CCTV and other
security provisions.
Provides clear security measures
and, in particular, a security
presence to improve passenger
perceptions of safety and security.
IP8 Improving 18, 19, 21, 3.1, 7.2   Ensures interchanges can be used
accessibility 40, 45, 82 by everyone, enabling access for
disabled passengers as well as
providing disabled facilities.
Removes physical barriers that
prevent or hinder interchange
to provide improved access to
surrounding services.

34
Interchange Framework –
policy criteria
These criteria are designed to capture
measures which indicate how important an
interchange is in terms of delivering overall
mayoral strategies. Given the wide scope
of potential interchange improvements,
it is important to consider the role of an
interchange in the wider transport system.
These criteria therefore look at how the
interchange can contribute as an origin or
destination, and as part of a wider
transport network.
IP1: Supporting sustainable growth
Supporting continued growth in population
and employment in a sustainable manner is a
key principle across all of the mayoral policy
documents. For an interchange this is related
both to balancing capacity and demand as
well as its role as a gateway to town centres,
businesses and services.
For example, outside the Central Activities
Zone, East Croydon interchange ranks
highest in terms of its potential to support
sustainable growth, as well as the impact the
current crowding could have on its role in
supporting such growth.
IP2: Improving transport connectivity
This looks at the role of an interchange in
enabling more efficient use of the transport
network, and in improving choice.
There are two key benefits – firstly to
redirect people so they can experience a
more efficient journey and secondly, reduced
levels of crowding for those still using the
existing route.
This includes the potential to enable orbital
movement, which could have some effect
on reducing central London congestion,
which is highlighted in MTS policy 46
(strategic interchanges).
For example, Clapham Junction ranks seventh
using this criterion, just below the major
central London termini. This reflects its
important role as a major rail interchange for
a significant number of rail lines in the South
East and South West, as well as for London
Overground orbital services and bus services.
IP3: Promoting businesses
This considers an interchange in its role as
a gateway to both employment and to the
workforce itself. It also considers access to
key tourist sites.
The top ranking interchanges in this criterion
are understandably grouped around central
London, reflecting the dense employment
in this location. However, key Outer
London interchanges linking population
and employment also feature prominently,
for instance Queen’s Park, Cutty Sark and
Upton Park.
IP4: Supporting regeneration
While continued growth is accounted for in
IP1, there are areas across the Capital where
there is significant opportunity to regenerate
or achieve substantial new growth. These
have been identified in the London Plan and
are classified as either intensification areas or
opportunity areas.
An interchange will therefore score well if it is
situated in, or near, a specific area identified as
having the potential for growth or regeneration
(as opposed to in IP1 where the ability to
support sustainable economic growth is
measured more generically). An interchange
will also score well if it is situated in a
particularly deprived area of London8, so having
greater potential to support wider goals with
regards to improving access to opportunities.
8 As measured by the 2010 Indices of Deprivation,
Department of Communities and Local Government
35
For example, interchanges to the east, such
as Canning Town, Stratford and East India,
rank highly, reflecting their role in supporting
the opportunity and intensification areas in
the Thames Gateway.
IP5: Facilitating active travel
The promotion of both walking and cycling
and the resulting health benefits that this
could have is a key mayoral goal. Interchanges
can help encourage active travel by enabling
part of a longer trip to be undertaken by more
active modes.
The proximity of an interchange to, for
instance, the London Cycling Network or the
Strategic Walking Network, can help promote
more active modes with measures such as
better wayfinding, improved cycle parking and
enhanced pedestrian facilities.
Significant improvements in walking and cycling
have been made over the past few years.
Plans are to continue expanding Legible
London, TfL’s pedestrian wayfinding system.
Its maps and signs make it easier for people
to navigate areas on foot and are now
being incorporated into all TfL’s wayfinding
information at interchanges.
TfL, together with the London boroughs,
other partners and the private sector, is
working to ensure the installation of 66,000
new cycle parking spaces in the Capital by the
end of 2012. More than 46,000 are already
on streets and at interchanges, workplaces,
schools and new building developments, and
55,000 will be delivered by March 2012.
Central London termini feature quite high in
this ranking reflecting the many cycling and
walking opportunities for short journeys.
Interchange Framework –
quality criteria
These seek to identify the
passenger’s perception of the current
interchange experience.
Goals and objectives from the Mayor’s
Strategic Policy Framework for London are
designed to deliver an improved quality of life
in the Capital, including the standard of travel.
They can be met in part by better facilities at
interchanges. For example, personal security
can be improved by implementing measures
such as enhanced lighting or CCTV.
In 2009 TfL introduced a new measure of
‘overall journey experience’ which looks
to gauge levels of satisfaction with multi-
modal journeys. Further refinements in the
collation of satisfaction data will focus on
the interchange experience and will provide
important information for any future update of
this framework. For now, however, TfL has not
commissioned any bespoke surveys and has
relied on existing customer perception data.
In practice, data does not exist for every
location or mode of transport, so where it is
not available an average value is used.
Data from Mystery Shopper Surveys (MSSs)
and Customer Satisfaction Surveys (CSSs)
have contributed to scores for several of
these criteria.
MSSs aim to evaluate the quality of
interchange from the passenger’s perspective,
rather than giving a simple audit of facilities.
This is done by sending a surveyor to use and
assess the facilities.
CSSs are similar but reflect feedback from
passengers. These too have their limitations
but provide a useful indication of people’s
perception of an interchange.
36
IP6: Improving journey experience
Ensuring the quality of facilities at an
interchange, and therefore the experience a
user has, is central to encouraging the use of
public transport.
MSSs and CSSs have been used to assess
passengers’ perceptions of the condition and
quality of general facilities, including signs
and level of cleanliness.
IP7: Improving safety and security
This is a key remit of the Mayor, and one
that extends to the transport network. As
with criterion IP6 above, the key sources
for assessment are a combination of asset
information, for example the provision of
CCTV throughout the interchange, and MSS
scores on the perceived levels of safety and
security. This could include, for instance, the
extent of available lighting, visibility of staff
and level of graffiti.
IP8: Improving accessibility
Accessibility covers the physical provisions at
an interchange, for example step-free access,
as well as the access to and from goods and
services nearby.
It is important that the transport network
provides a high quality of service to all
Londoners. This means that interchanges
must take account of particular groups,
such as disabled passengers, those on lower
incomes and people whose first language
is not English. Scoring for this criterion is
confined to physical accessibility for mobility-
impaired people. Research is being conducted
to identify the needs of some of the other
groups named in the objectives of the MTS.
However, there is insufficient network-wide
information available at present to contribute
to a score.
Access to public transport services has
been calculated using the Public Transport
Accessibility Level (PTAL), a methodology for
determining how accessible the public transport
network is from any location in London.
Interchanges have also been analysed using
Access to Opportunities and Services (ATOS)
data, which measure the level of access
to education, health services, quality food
shopping and open spaces.
The quality gap
Interchanges that score highly on policy
criteria are deemed to be the most important
for the development of London.
However, just because an interchange
is important in this context it does not
necessarily need improving. The current
quality of facilities also needs to be
considered to determine how the interchange
performs from a customer perspective.
As a measure of this, TfL has developed the
concept of the ‘quality gap’. For example, if
two locations are equally important in policy
terms the one that currently has the worst
physical facilities is considered most in need
of improvement.
It must be noted that some modes of transport
in particular suffer from a lack of consistent
quality data, for instance cycling, taxis, coaches,
river services and some bus facilities.
To reflect this, the quality gap assessment
uses ratings of high, medium or low.
For example, ‘high’ indicates a relatively
poor quality compared to its importance in
supporting the delivery of policy.
37
What the analysis does
not include
Some of the MTS goals, challenges and
outcomes do not fit neatly into these
interchange criteria. This is usually because
the objective applies equally to all locations
across London. If improving interchange
helps to achieve the air quality or freight
movement targets, for example, it does so in
a general way rather than producing benefits
at particular locations. On this basis, the
following information has not been used to
score individual locations.
MTS London-wide goals
These apply relatively equally to
all interchanges:
• Enhance the quality of life for all
Londoners: improving air quality and
improving noise impacts
• Improve the safety and security of all
Londoners: improving road safety and
improving public transport safety
• Reduce transport’s contribution to climate
change and improve its resilience: reducing
carbon dioxide emissions and adapting to
climate change
Project or scheme-specific goals
The goals below are not considered in this
process (although the resultant regeneration
is under IP4). Instead they are identified in the
analysis to allow data to be sorted by
specific outcomes:
• Support delivery of the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games and
its legacy
• Delivery of Crossrail
• Delivery of High Speed 2 (HS2)
Although these do not contribute to the
ranking of interchanges at this stage, should
an improvement scheme be prioritised and
taken forward it would be assessed against
its contribution to meeting all the goals,
challenges and outcomes in the MTS.
Number of passengers
Clearly the level of demand at an interchange
is a significant factor in determining its
importance. Additional information has
been added to the summary analysis tables
in order to group locations according to the
current number of passengers using them on
a weekday, whether as an origin or destination
or as an interchange to pass through. The
final results table (Appendix 1) shows the size
band of each interchange.
Groupings range from ‘1’ for an interchange
with fewer than 2,500 users per day, to ‘6’
for one that caters for more than 250,000
passengers daily. Interchanges in bands 5 and
6 are shown in Fig 3.2.
Size bands
1 0 < 2,500
2 2,501 < 5,000
3 5,001 < 10,000
4 10,001 < 50,000
5 50,001 < 250,000
6 > 250,000
A number of issues influence demand as
a determining factor of the importance
of an interchange. Numbers of people
interchanging could be low at a particular
location because the facilities currently
provided are very poor, so passengers are
deterred from making the interchange. It
might be worth focusing investment at these
locations if they have the potential to attract
significantly more interchange movements.
Similarly, emphasis on the number of people
interchanging concentrates attention on
the larger locations. However, there may be
smaller scale schemes which, while benefiting
fewer people, could be equally worthwhile.
For these reasons, the number of passengers
at an interchange has not been used to
determine the ranking of locations.
38
Figure 3.2 – Interchanges with more than 50,000 users per weekday

39 40
4. Results

As explained in Section 3, all interchanges Top ranking interchange

were first assessed against their ability to
contribute towards delivering the policy locations for policy
objectives of the MTS, London Plan and EDS. The top ranking interchanges in terms of
policy alone in each of the five categories
A list of the most important interchanges in
are shown in Fig 4.1. The scores supporting
terms of delivering these strategies has
these rankings are shown in Table 4.2 (as
been produced.
defined in Fig 3.1)
Additionally, interchanges have been assessed
A list of all interchanges in London, sorted
according to passengers’ perception of their
by borough, is included as Appendix 1.
quality. These two sets of data have been
These results are also illustrated in map
combined to produce information on the
form in Figure 2.1.
perceived ‘quality gap’.
Interchanges that score highly on policy
An interchange that scores highly against the
objectives are deemed to be the most
Mayor’s policy objectives and currently has
important for the strategic development
poor facilities will have a high policy rank and
of London.
a high quality gap. An interchange of equal
importance, but at which the facilities are It is crucial to bear in mind that just because
better, will still have a high policy rank but a an interchange is important, it does not
lower quality gap. necessarily need improving – ‘importance’
is only one of the criteria for deciding where
These measures are envisaged only as an
resources should be focused.
indicator and will inform TfL’s and other
stakeholders’ priorities for investment. This is Fig 4.2 shows interchanges by their
covered in more detail in Section 5. regional locations.

41
Figure 4.1 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

42 43
Table 4.1 – Top 20 interchanges in each category for achieving policy goals and objectives

Category A: International
King’s Cross Victoria Heathrow Terminals Heathrow Terminal 5
St. Pancras (rail and coach) 1, 2 & 3 London City Airport
Heathrow Terminal 4
Category B: National and inter-regional
Waterloo Blackfriars Elephant & Castle Bond Street
Liverpool Street Charing Cross Farringdon Marylebone
London Bridge Moorgate Fenchurch Street Canary Wharf
Paddington Tottenham Court Road Clapham Junction Whitechapel
Euston Cannon Street Stratford Woolwich Arsenal
Category C: London-wide
Bank/Monument East Croydon Finsbury Park City Thameslink
Oxford Circus Holborn Aldgate West Croydon
Green Park Piccadilly Circus Leicester Square Westminster
Baker Street Old Street Tower Hill Highbury & Islington
Embankment Barbican Vauxhall Aldgate East
Category D: Regional
Shepherd’s Bush Mansion House Southwark Bethnal Green (Central)
(Central) Goodge Street Brixton Great Portland Street
Chancery Lane St. James’s Park Shoreditch High Street Camden Town
Mile End Notting Hill Gate Angel Lambeth North
St. Paul’s Russell Square Temple Hammersmith (District)
Covent Garden
Category E: Local
Battersea Park Queenstown Road Heron Quays Hackney Downs
Bethnal Green (Rail) Deptford Westferry Warwick Avenue
Dalston Kingsland Mornington Crescent Hoxton Drayton Park
Silver Street Clapton Northumberland Park Stoke Newington
Charlton Essex Road Alexandra Palace Westbourne Park

44
Table 4.2 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
A 1 King’s Cross St. Pancras Camden 5.6 10 2.2 2.3 1.5 7.6 8.0 5.0 Medium 6
A 7 Victoria Westminster 5.3 7.1 2.0 1.5 1.0 7.0 7.8 4.9 Medium 6
A 68 Heathrow Central (T1,2,3) Hillingdon 0.2 5.9 0.6 1.7 0.7 7.3 7.7 2.5 High 4
A 110 Heathrow Terminal 5 Hillingdon 0.0 5.6 0.1 1.7 0.5 8.6 8.1 3.4 Medium 4
A 174 Heathrow Terminal 4 Hillingdon 0.0 5.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 7.9 9.1 2.7 Low - medium 3
A 254 London City Airport Newham 0.0 3.7 0.2 1.8 0.6 7.7 8.1 3.9 Low - medium 2

45
Table 4.2 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
B 2 Waterloo Lambeth 5.5 8.8 2.8 1.9 1.3 7.1 8.0 6.2 Medium 6
B 3 Liverpool Street City of London 6.0 7.9 2.6 1.9 1.1 7.4 8.1 5.6 Medium 6
B 4 London Bridge Southwark 5.7 7.5 2.9 1.6 1.5 7.0 7.6 5.2 Medium 6
B 5 Paddington Westminster 6.4 7.8 1.2 1.7 1.4 6.8 7.5 4.4 Medium 5
B 6 Euston Camden 5.1 6.9 2.1 1.9 1.2 7.0 8.7 5.0 Medium 5
B 8 Blackfriars City of London 5.2 5.4 3.1 1.5 1.1 7.0 8.2 5.6 Medium* 5
B 10 Charing Cross Westminster 3.3 6.1 4.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 7.7 5.9 Medium 5
B 11 Moorgate City of London 4.0 6.1 2.7 1.6 1.2 7.1 8.6 5.7 Medium 5
B 12 Tottenham Court Road Westminster 3.9 5.2 3.5 1.7 1.0 6.7 7.4 5.7 Medium 5
B 13 Cannon Street City of London 4.8 5.1 3.1 0.9 0.9 7.1 9.1 5.4 Medium 5
B 15 Elephant & Castle Southwark 4.1 5.6 1.4 1.8 0.8 7.4 8.9 3.5 Medium 5
B 16 Farringdon Islington 2.9 6.0 2.5 1.6 0.8 6.7 7.0 4.7 Medium - high 5
B 23 Fenchurch Street City of London 3.7 4.2 2.7 1.6 0.8 7.0 8.2 5.2 Medium 5
B 24 Clapham Junction Wandsworth 3.5 6.7 0.9 0.6 1.0 7.0 8.2 4.0 Medium 5
B 25 Stratford Newham 2.3 6.8 0.5 2.3 0.7 7.3 7.9 3.2 Medium - high 5
B 26 Bond Street Westminster 4.6 5.2 1.8 0.4 0.6 7.5 8.7 5.1 Medium 5
B 29 Marylebone Westminster 3.0 5.8 1.7 1.1 0.8 7.5 9.2 4.8 Medium 5
B 30 Canary Wharf Tower Hamlets 3.7 4.7 1.2 1.9 0.7 7.8 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 5
B 32 Whitechapel Tower Hamlets 2.5 5.3 1.3 2.3 0.7 6.2 8.3 3.2 High 5
B 49 Woolwich Arsenal Greenwich 0.8 5.6 0.5 2.3 1.1 7.0 8.2 3.2 Medium - high 4
* Pre-2011
46
Table 4.2 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
C 9 Bank/Monument City of London 5.1 5.9 2.9 0.8 1.2 7.2 8.9 6.0 Medium 6
C 14 Oxford Circus Westminster 5.8 4.3 2.6 0.8 0.5 7.1 8.8 5.5 Medium 6
C 17 Green Park Westminster 6.1 4.2 2.4 0.5 0.7 7.2 8.4 4.5 Low 5
C 18 Baker Street Westminster 4.7 5.9 2.0 0.5 0.7 7.1 7.9 4.3 Medium 5
C 19 Embankment Westminster 2.3 5.5 3.4 1.4 1.0 7.1 8.7 5.6 Medium 5
C 20 East Croydon Croydon 4.8 5.7 0.7 1.4 0.9 7.0 8.0 4.7 Medium 5
C 21 Holborn Camden 3.9 3.9 2.5 2.0 1.0 7.4 9.4 5.3 Medium 5
C 22 Piccadilly Circus Westminster 3.5 3.9 3.9 1.1 0.8 7.3 8.7 5.4 Medium 5
C 27 Old Street Islington 3.1 4.9 1.8 1.9 0.9 6.7 8.8 3.9 Medium 5
C 28 Barbican City of London 2.1 4.8 2.8 1.8 0.9 7.1 7.3 5.0 Medium 4
C 31 Finsbury Park Islington 3.1 5.4 1.0 1.5 1.4 6.3 7.7 3.5 Medium - high 5
C 33 Aldgate City of London 2.3 4.6 2.3 2.0 0.8 6.9 7.2 5.0 Medium 4
C 34 Leicester Square Westminster 1.7 3.9 3.8 1.3 1.0 7.2 9.1 5.6 Medium 5
C 36 Tower Hill Tower Hamlets 2.9 3.7 2.5 1.7 0.9 7.6 9.5 4.6 Medium 5
C 37 Vauxhall Lambeth 2.9 4.4 1.2 1.6 1.2 6.8 8.9 3.6 Medium 5
C 38 City Thameslink City of London 1.3 4.5 3.1 1.3 1.0 7.0 8.4 5.0 Medium 4
C 39 West Croydon Croydon 1.5 6.1 0.7 1.8 0.9 6.5 7.8 3.9 Medium - high 4
C 40 Westminster Westminster 1.2 4.2 3.4 1.3 1.0 7.7 8.8 4.4 Medium 5
C 42 Highbury & Islington Islington 2.9 4.8 1.0 1.3 0.9 6.4 8.9 3.9 Medium 5
C 44 Aldgate East Tower Hamlets 1.5 4.2 2.0 2.0 0.8 6.8 8.2 4.4 Medium 4

47
Table 4.2 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
Shepherd’s Hammersmith
D 35 3.6 4.9 1.1 1.5 0.6 8.3 9.5 3.1 Medium 5
Bush (Central) & Fulham
D 41 Chancery Lane Camden 2.8 3.4 2.4 1.4 0.9 7.1 8.5 4.9 Medium 5
D 43 Mile End Tower Hamlets 2.4 4.8 1.0 1.4 1.0 6.0 7.9 2.8 High 5
D 46 St. Paul’s City of London 2.1 3.3 3.3 0.9 0.9 7.6 9.2 5.6 Medium 4
D 48 Covent Garden Westminster 1.4 3.4 3.1 1.5 0.9 7.5 9.0 5.6 Medium 5
D 51 Mansion House City of London 1.2 3.7 3.2 1.1 0.9 7.5 8.6 6.0 Medium 4
D 52 Goodge Street Camden 2.0 3.4 2.7 1.3 0.7 7.3 8.6 5.1 Medium 4
D 54 St. James’s Park Westminster 2.1 3.5 2.4 1.1 0.9 7.3 8.6 3.9 Medium 4
Kensington
D 56 Notting Hill Gate 2.5 4.9 1.1 0.4 0.8 6.3 8.3 3.3 Medium - high 5
& Chelsea
D 57 Russell Square Camden 1.4 3.3 2.5 1.6 0.9 6.9 8.9 5.0 Medium 4
D 58 Southwark Southwark 1.5 4.0 1.9 1.5 0.8 7.8 8.4 5.3 Medium 4
D 59 Brixton Lambeth 2.2 4.8 1.1 1.2 0.3 6.3 9.2 3.7 Medium 5
D 63 Shoreditch High Street Tower Hamlets 1.4 3.8 1.4 2.1 0.6 4.1 4.7 3.5 Medium - high 3
D 64 Angel Islington 2.4 3.2 1.5 1.3 0.8 7.4 8.9 3.4 Medium 5
D 69 Temple Westminster 1.3 3.5 1.9 1.5 0.8 7.3 8.8 5.8 Medium 4
D 71 Bethnal Green (Central) Tower Hamlets 1.5 3.8 1.3 2.1 0.4 7.6 9.1 3.0 Medium 4
D 73 Great Portland Street Westminster 1.7 4.1 1.6 0.8 0.7 7.3 7.3 4.4 Medium 4
D 74 Camden Town Camden 2.5 3.3 1.0 1.2 0.8 6.9 8.5 2.9 Medium - high 5
D 78 Lambeth North Lambeth 1.1 3.4 1.9 1.6 0.7 7.1 9.1 5.0 Medium 3
Hammersmith &
D 79 Hammersmith (District) 1.7 4.4 1.0 0.7 0.8 7.3 8.3 3.5 Medium 5
Fulham

48
Table 4.2 – Top 20 policy interchanges by category

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 83 Battersea Park Wandsworth 1.1 4.3 0.6 1.6 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.4 High 3
Bethnal Green
E 100 Tower Hamlets 0.5 3.8 1.3 2.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 1
(National Rail)
E 116 Dalston Kingsland Hackney 1.0 3.1 1.1 2.0 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 4
E 129 Silver Street Enfield 0.4 3.8 0.6 2.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.2 High 1
E 130 Charlton Greenwich 0.0 4.3 0.4 1.8 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 3
E 131 Queenstown Road Wandsworth 0.8 3.7 0.6 1.6 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 2
E 132 Deptford Lewisham 0.4 3.7 0.7 1.7 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.3 High 2
E 133 Mornington Crescent Camden 1.1 3.3 1.0 1.6 0.6 7.4 8.7 3.6 Medium 4
E 136 Clapton Hackney 0.0 3.8 0.9 2.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.4 High 1
E 137 Essex Road Islington 0.7 3.9 1.1 1.2 0.7 6.6 8.2 3.3 Medium - high 1
E 139 Heron Quays Tower Hamlets 0.9 3.0 1.2 1.7 0.6 6.1 6.3 2.6 High 3
E 146 Westferry Tower Hamlets 0.3 3.0 1.2 2.0 0.8 6.2 7.0 2.7 High 3
E 147 Hoxton Hackney 0.7 3.1 1.1 1.9 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 2
E 151 Northumberland Park Haringey 0.0 3.7 0.5 2.2 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.2 High 1
E 155 Alexandra Palace Haringey 0.5 3.7 0.5 1.7 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium - high 2
E 157 Hackney Downs Hackney 0.1 3.7 1.0 1.9 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 2
E 158 Warwick Avenue Westminster 0.8 3.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 7.0 8.1 3.2 Medium 4
E 159 Drayton Park Islington 0.2 3.7 1.0 1.7 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium - high 1
E 162 Stoke Newington Hackney 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.9 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1
E 164 Westbourne Park Westminster 0.5 3.6 1.3 1.3 0.6 6.1 8.5 2.7 Medium - high 3

49
Top interchange locations for
quality gap
The quality gap gives useful information in
terms of perceived quality of interchange
across London and is another tool for
stakeholders to use in prioritising investment.
These listings are a general indicator of the
‘status’ of interchanges. King’s Cross St
Pancras serves as an example: it is ranked
as the most important of the category A
interchanges in Table 4.1. Consideration of
the quality perception shows it to have a
medium quality gap as a consequence of the
significant investment recently made there.
The conclusion to be drawn is that, while King’s
Cross St Pancras is very important, there are
other locations which, although less significant
in terms of policy, may need to be looked at
as they currently have worse facilities.
An example of this is Battersea Park, which
has the highest policy rank of the category
E interchanges and a very high quality gap,
indicating a perception of poor standards.
In practice this analysis alone does not form
any prioritisation for investment. However,
it does provide a solid policy base for
consideration when establishing where to
commit very limited funds and resources.
TfL’s approach to identifying priorities is set
out in Section 5.
Categorisation of interchanges
The results of this work can be analysed in a
number of different ways. From the point of
view of geographical spread, there is clearly
some tendency for central London locations
to score highly against policy objectives
(Fig 4.2). This is not only a result of greater
public transport provision, employment and
opportunities, but also because the radial
nature of the rail network means significant
volumes of interchange occur in central London.
However, the categorisation avoids giving too
much emphasis to the major central London
interchanges. Outer London locations such
as Brixton, Alexandra Palace, East and West
Croydon, Shepherd’s Bush and Finsbury Park
all feature highly in their respective categories.
There is a fairly wide geographical spread
of key interchanges across London’s sub-
regions. This is illustrated in Figure 4.2, where
the representation of interchanges by region
and borough is shown in three ways – the
total number of interchanges, the top 100 for
policy and the quality gap.
Additional analysis
The analysis in this framework is fairly static
in that it assesses the relative importance
of interchanges against the policies and
objectives of three key mayoral strategies.
This is fine and enables the framework to
establish a policy ranking across London.
However, there is a vast amount of dynamic
data and further analysis that can be carried
out using this framework as a base, tailored
to particular objectives or outcomes. For
example, major transport investment such
as Crossrail or HS2 would focus attention on
interchanges supporting that development.
50
Project or location filters Strategic and regionally
In order to make this framework as flexible important interchanges
as possible for all stakeholders, some filters An example of further analysis can be seen in
have been identified. TfL’s sub-regional transport plans, where this
framework has been used to identify strategic
As described in Section 2, the analysis behind and regionally important interchanges. This
the ranking of interchanges is based on their is covered in more detail in Section 5 and
importance in terms of delivering the Mayor’s Appendix 4.
strategies, not because they are linked to a
specific scheme, role or geographic location.
However, in practice it is often important
for stakeholders to be able to identify the
highest ranking interchange for more limited
scenarios, therefore the following filters have
been included:

• Major projects (eg Crossrail, the

2012 Games)
• Proximity to town centres
• Proximity to the Blue Ribbon Network9
• Proximity to opportunity or
intensification areas
• Sub-region
This allows TfL to identify important
interchanges in a number of key areas or
schemes identified in the Mayor’s strategies.
Further filters can be applied as necessary.

9 MTS Ch 5.7 – ‘encompasses the Thames, the

canals, tributary rivers, streams, reservoirs and
lakes within London’
51
Figure 4.2 – Distribution of interchanges by sub-region

All interchanges
91
125
North
South
115 176 East
West
117 Central

Top 100 for policy

4
17
North
South
11
59 East
9 West
Central

Quality gap interchanges

200
180
160
140
120
100
80 Low
60 Low - medium
40
Medium
20
0
Medium - high
North South East West Central High

52
 Bar Bar
kin kin
g& g&
Da Da

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
40
45

30
35
ge nh gen
a ha
Bar m Bar m
net n
Be Be et
xle xle
Bre y B y
Bro nt Bro rent
Cit Ca mley Cit Ca mley
y o md y o md
f L en f L en
on on
Cro don Cro don
ydo ydo
Eal n Eal n
En ing En ing
Ha
mm G ree field
Ha
mm G ree field
ers nw ers nw

Fig 4.4 – Interchange size by borough

mi Hac ich mi Hac ich
th th
& F kney & F kney
u u
Ha lham Ha lham
Fig 4.3 – Interchange categories by borough

rin rin
g g
Ha ey Ha ey
Ha ow r r Ha ow r r
Hil vering Hil vering
li li

0 < 2,500
Ke Ho ngdo Ke Ho ngdo

> 250,000
un n un n
Category E

Category B
Category C
Category D

Category A

nsi sl nsi sl
ngt I
on ling ows ngt I s
on ling ow

2,500 < 5,000

5,000 < 10,000
& C ton & C ton

10,000 < 50,000

he he

50,000 < 250,000

Kin lsea Kin lsea
g g
Lam ston Lam ston
Lew beth Lew beth
is is
Meham Meham
Ne rton Ne rton
w w
Red ham Red ham
bri bri
Ric dge Ric dge
h h
So mon So mon
uth d uth d
Tow wa Tow wa
e
Wa H to r
Sut rk e
Wa H to r
Sut rk
lth am n lth am n
am le am le
Wa For ts Wa For ts
n e n e
We dswo st We dswo st
stm rth stm rth
ins ins
ter ter

53
5. Prioritisation and delivery
This framework is not prescriptive with
respect to where improvements to
interchanges should take place, nor does it
commit TfL funds to any particular project.
The ranking provided will inform TfL and
stakeholders of the relative importance
of interchange locations and give an initial
consideration regarding passengers’ perception
of quality. However, this information alone
does not provide a definitive list of investment
priorities. A number of other considerations
need to be taken into account by TfL and
stakeholders before committing limited funds
and resources.
This section sets out the role of this
framework as a tool in helping to inform
prioritisation. It also suggests ways in which
improvements can be identified and delivered
in partnership with stakeholders.
The 2002 Interchange Plan
and current schemes
The 2002 plan set out priorities for
interchange improvements across London.
It was aligned with the previous MTS and
provided a solid framework for short, medium
and long-term interchange improvements. It
has steered TfL’s prioritisation of schemes
to date and provided the basis for the
development and delivery of a number of
interchange improvements with stakeholders
and partners.
TfL has a current portfolio of interchange
improvement schemes (Fig 2.2) and acts
as stakeholder to a number of third-
party initiatives. In addition, it manages
a ‘live prioritisation’ process, evaluating
different criteria to advise the business and
stakeholders on interchange priorities.
This framework, along with the sub-
regional transport plans, will feed into this.
MTS delivery process
This framework forms part of the MTS
delivery process, as set out below:
The MTS 2010, chapter 7.3.2
‘In parallel with the development of the
London sub-regional transport plans, TfL will
update its Interchange Plan. This plan will
complement the MTS, London Plan and EDS
and help TfL and the boroughs to prioritise
how available resources should be put into
the development and implementation of
particular interchange proposals. It will
build on the analysis at a regional level,
identifying strategically and regionally
important interchanges and provide a
common benchmark for quality across all
categories of interchange. It will provide a
framework to enable consideration of arising
opportunities to leverage funding as well
as consideration of area and system-wide
initiatives, including facilities for walking and
cycling, adjacent to the interchanges.’
54
Figure 5.1 – The Interchange Framework in context

Strategic Policy Framework

MTS The London Plan EDS

Sub-regional transport plans

North South East West Central

The Interchange Framework

Prioritisation TfL
‘dynamic planning’
Network Rail/TOCs

Investigation/feasibility DfT
Delivery
partners GLA/LDA
‘Masterplanning’ and
implementation of Boroughs
phased improvements
BIDs/local business
Short- Medium- Long-
term term term Developers

Investment planning and delivery

33 LIPs/TfL Business Plan of interchange portfolio

55
Scheme prioritisation
It is intended that stakeholders should be
able to use the analysis in this framework to
inform their own prioritisation and investment
planning, and assist in the development of
priorities moving forward.
Some interchanges ranking highly in this
framework may already have improvement
schemes planned for the future. For example,
Whitechapel is ranked very highly as a
category B interchange with a high quality gap.
It will become a Crossrail interchange and
significant station improvements are planned
as part of those works.
Consideration of
dynamic information
In addition to the framework analysis there
is further information that parties will
need to consider when deciding whether
an interchange improvement scheme is a
priority. These are set out below:
• Transport development
Consideration will need to be given to
funded schemes, such as the Victoria
station upgrade or Crossrail, including
opportunities where integration could
maximise benefits (eg Crossrail
interchange stations)
• Transport capacity/crowding
This covers both anticipated growth and
the impact of local developments on the
use of public transport. Stakeholders will
need to consider the number of existing
and forecast passengers and the relative
interchange capacity (an example is the
Bank Underground station congestion
relief scheme)
• Deliverability
This involves looking at resources,
availability of funding, level of support and
physical constraints for all stakeholders
• Urgency
Consideration must be given to third-party
drivers such as imminent development or
transport issues (eg 2012 Games)
Scheme scope
TfL has produced the IBPG (2009)11. This
provides a common quality benchmark and
promotes design that considers all forms of
passenger movement, the local context and
environmental issues.
TfL’s approach is to ensure a ‘masterplan’
is developed for an interchange, looking at
the long-term needs of the passenger and
transport system, and ensuring that short and
medium-term improvements are planned in
the context of this.
It is important to create a balance between
low cost, short-term schemes and those
that will take longer to implement. Account
will also have to be taken of the need to
coordinate work with other projects that
are already planned for any location. There
is often potential to maximise passenger
benefits by ‘co-delivering’ low cost, short-
term improvements within the scope of
larger, more significant transport investments.
From customer research it is clear that
important improvements to the quality and
useability of an interchange can be made
without significant cost. These include
initiatives such as better signage and clearer
mapping, for instance Legible London, and
improving sight lines by removing unnecessary
street and station clutter.
A large number of interchange projects
are already under way and are delivering
improvements covering a range of sizes and
timescales (Fig 2.2).
11 tfl.gov.uk/interchange
56
How priorities will be
dealt with
Partnership is vital to the successful
implementation of interchange schemes.
In order to provide integrated journeys for
passengers, transport providers and operators
must work closely together.
TfL recognises that it has a responsibility to
take the lead in bringing the relevant parties
together through the planning, funding, design
and delivery stages. Where appropriate,
TfL will act as a catalyst, working with and
coordinating other parties, developing ideas
and leading projects and programmes.
TfL’s involvement in schemes can vary greatly.
While the role would depend on the nature
of the project, in general TfL would oversee
the development of a scheme and advise
the project team on aspects it has specific
expertise in. This might include researching
an element of the scheme, overseeing design
work, carrying out modelling, advising on
the planning implications, pulling together
funding packages and putting implementation
plans in place.
A system-wide approach
The analysis in this framework is being
used to support a number of system-
wide improvements.
Measures such as enhancing information,
signage, security and ambience can have a
positive impact on useability and therefore
the efficiency of an interchange. Such
improvements increase the location’s
attractiveness and reduce both perceived and
actual time spent using the interchange.
The IBPG makes it clear that a combination of
physical improvements and consideration of
‘softer’ aspects, such as passenger information
and space to make onward journey decisions,
are necessary to maximise benefits.
Signage and wayfinding
Plans are to continue expanding Legible
London, TfL’s pedestrian wayfinding system.
The maps and signs, which make it easier for
people to navigate areas on foot, are being
incorporated into new multi-modal signage
schemes at interchanges across the Capital.

Stakeholder priorities
Not all the interchanges prioritised by TfL will
be rated as the same priority level by other
stakeholders, for instance Network Rail or the
London boroughs.
Other work will therefore progress
independently of the TfL interchange
portfolio, although TfL will still be involved
where it can add value.
For example, Network Rail has published its
Guide to Station Planning and Design, which
focuses on getting the basic facilities right
and considering the broader role of stations
in the future. Where TfL has similar priorities
it will work to integrate these improvements
into the wider interchange. Where priorities
do not overlap, TfL will provide support in
terms of interchange best practice.
57
TfL is now working with the boroughs, BIDs
and other organisations to expand the
system further.
It has developed The Interchange Signs
Standard12, which builds on signage and
wayfinding best practice specifically for multi-
modal interchanges.
Security
Crime on public transport has fallen
significantly in recent years but the fear of
crime still remains a barrier that stops some
people using the network. At interchanges
improvements have been made to CCTV
systems and there is a greater British
Transport Police presence. The IBPG also
recommends ‘softer’ measures that can
influence people’s perception of safety,
including increased staff visibility, better
‘natural surveillance’ from carefully located
retail outlets, and improved design of the
urban realm around the interchange.
Walking and cycling
Almost a quarter of all trips made in Greater
London are entirely on foot and all journeys
include walking at some point.
The number of people cycling is on the
increase. It is estimated that cycle trips grew
by around 150 per cent in the last 10 years
and now account for approximately two per
cent of all trips in London13.
These improvements make walking and
cycling a very real option for one or more legs
of a public transport journey. Therefore, it is
vital that interchanges cater for this need.
12 Multi-modal interchange Signs Standard Issue 5
2011 – tfl.gov.uk/designstandards
13 Travel in London Report 4
TfL has produced guidance on cycle parking
standards to help ensure consistency
across the transport network in terms of
the quality and capacity of cycle parking
provision. Network Rail and the train operating
companies are also rolling out a programme of
cycle parking improvements at their stations.
Accessibility
TfL is committed to providing easy and
accessible travel for as many people as
possible. Parts of the public transport
network are fully accessible, such as the DLR
and Croydon Tramlink. Improvements across
the network are ongoing and include the
installation of platform humps at stations
on the Victoria line to provide level access
between the platform and train. They will
also be introduced on the Circle, District,
Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines
along with new trains.
At present 140 Underground, Overground
and DLR stations have step-free access from
street to platform, including many of the
main interchanges.
Disabled people can experience significant
barriers when making public transport
journeys that involve interchanges. In July
2011 TfL published its draft Accessibility
Implementation Plan to encourage further
debate about accessibility improvements on
London’s transport system, beyond those
measures already planned. The final report is
due to be published in March 2012.
In particular the MTS prioritises investment
in step-free access at strategic interchanges
(proposal 40) and TfL is developing a strategy
for how this can be delivered (Appendix 4).
58
The DfT, through Network Rail, has
introduced an ongoing programme of
accessibility improvements at rail stations
called Access for All. TfL is working with
them to ensure the improvements are
integrated with the wider interchange zone14.
TfL has published the step-free Tube Guide,
which identifies those stations that have
step-free access to the platforms and/or
connections to other lines and National Rail.
It has also produced the Avoiding Stairs
Tube Guide.15
Making it easier to get on or off buses is also
a priority. TfL is working in partnership with
the London boroughs to improve bus stops
so this can be achieved.
More than 10 per cent of bus stops now
provide real-time travel information and taxis
also offer a service that is fully accessible to
wheelchair users.
Coordinated management
TfL is leading a stakeholder initiative to
improve the coordinated management of
interchanges, specifically looking at the
service provided to passengers when there
are multiple operators.
This is improving the way operators work
together at interchanges, focusing on
passenger benefits and a more joined-up
customer service. Feedback from a trial at
Finsbury Park interchange in spring 2011
showed noticeable improvements in the
quality of passenger information provided
by staff, particularly during special events
and disruptions.
TfL is well placed to lead an initiative such as
this and it is intended that implementing this
framework will form part of the process.
14 See TfL’s IBPG 2009 at tfl.gov.uk/interchange
15 Both are available at tfl.gov.uk/gettingaround
Regionally important interchanges
This framework provides interchange analysis
and information for TfL’s sub-regional
transport plans, in particular those that
support regional growth and access to town
centres (IP1, IP3 and IP4).
Regionally important interchanges are
considered those that:
• Provide opportunities for orbital public
transport services within the sub-region
• Are of regional importance in terms of:
○○ The operation of the network
○○ The access/regeneration of town/
metropolitan centres
• Provide opportunities to accommodate
regional growth in population and
employment, potentially as a result of new
or planned infrastructure schemes
Strategic interchanges
In the MTS (proposal 46) these are defined as
being interchanges that have the potential, at
a London-wide level, to:
• Provide opportunities for orbital public
transport services
• Provide interchange opportunities before
arriving in central London, in order to
reduce interchange capacity pressure at
London’s rail termini
• Provide opportunities to accommodate
population and employment growth,
with developer contributions towards
interchange improvements sought in
appropriate circumstances
The framework policy criterion IP2 –
improving transport connectivity – has been
used to help identify potential strategic
interchanges (Fig 5.2 and Appendix 4).
59
TfL is developing a strategic interchange
delivery strategy to build on the analysis in
this framework and look more closely at
potential new connections and links to major
schemes, such as HS2. Recommendations
will include both station and network
improvements and will be developed with
stakeholders and the boroughs.
A key strategic interchange improvement will
be the completion of the London Overground
line from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction
by the end of 2012. This link will mean
passengers can use London Overground
services to make journeys around the Capital
without needing to head into the centre.
Proximity interchanges
All these workstreams are being linked with
walking and cycling initiatives to investigate
priorities for improvements where two
interchanges are within walking distance from
one another, and could join two networks.
Examples include Hackney Central/Hackney
Downs, Walthamstow Central/Walthamstow
Queens Road, Camden Town/Camden Road,
Putney/East Putney and New Cross/New
Cross Gate.
TfL is currently working to improve
awareness among passengers of the journey
opportunities proximity interchanges can
offer. This includes improvements to signage,
maps and the urban environment.
If high quality wayfinding systems and
pedestrian environments are provided,
passengers will be able to connect to new
services and networks on foot. This will
ultimately improve the experience and relieve
congestion on some heavily used corridors
and interchanges.
60
Fig 5.2 – Strategic interchanges (MTS Figure 46)

61 62
6. Conclusion
Improving interchanges will continue to be
challenging. London has one of the oldest
public transport networks in the world, and
enhancing and developing interchanges in
a mature and densely developed city is a
complex task. Locations are often physically
constrained and improvements can be costly
and difficult.
The relative importance of interchanges
described in this framework is one vital
consideration when prioritising scarce funding
and resources.
It is recognised that partnership is a key
feature of any successful interchange
improvement and it is hoped, therefore, that
the analysis set out here will contribute to
dialogue between parties, including transport
providers, local authorities and passengers.
Complexity and a multitude of parties are
inevitable features of interchange projects.
However, TfL believes that the challenge is
worth taking on and looks forward to working
with others to ensure that a high quality, fully
integrated transport system is delivered for
the benefit of all passengers.
63
Appendices
Page

65 Appendix 1 Full interchange list by borough

96 Appendix 2 Framework assessment criteria details
101 Appendix 3 Bus and coach interchanges
105 Appendix 4 Strategic interchanges

64
Appendix 1

Full interchange list by borough

65
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
C 50 Barking Barking & Dagenham 1.4 5.4 0.6 1.9 0.9 7.1 7.8 3.3 Medium - high 5

E 311 Dagenham Dock Barking & Dagenham 0.0 3.7 0.1 1.6 0.6 6.6 8.2 1.9 Medium - high 1

E 350 Dagenham Heathway Barking & Dagenham 0.5 2.9 0.5 1.2 0.5 6.2 8.6 2.2 Medium - high 4

E 392 Upney Barking & Dagenham 0.0 2.9 0.5 1.4 0.5 6.4 8.5 2.3 Medium 3

E 416 Becontree Barking & Dagenham 0.0 2.9 0.5 1.3 0.4 6.6 8.9 2.0 Medium 3

E 473 Dagenham East Barking & Dagenham 0.0 2.9 0.3 1.0 0.5 6.9 8.3 2.3 Medium 3

D 194 Cricklewood Barnet 0.5 3.9 0.6 1.4 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.9 Medium 2

D 222 Hendon Barnet 0.0 3.7 0.4 1.4 1.1 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium 2

D 285 Hendon Central Barnet 0.3 3.7 0.4 0.9 0.8 6.9 8.8 2.4 Medium 4

D 325 Mill Hill Broadway Barnet 0.4 3.7 0.3 0.8 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.5 Medium 3

D 390 Golders Green Barnet 0.5 3.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 6.8 8.7 2.6 Medium 4

D 445 Brent Cross Barnet 0.0 3.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 7.3 8.8 2.7 Low - medium 3

D 448 East Finchley Barnet 0.4 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.8 7.0 8.5 2.4 Low - medium 4

D 456 High Barnet Barnet 0.1 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 6.9 9.1 2.3 Low - medium 3

D 467 Finchley Central Barnet 0.5 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 6.8 9.3 2.5 Low - medium 4

D 495 Mill Hill East Barnet 0.0 2.9 0.2 1.1 0.3 6.8 9.1 2.2 Low - medium 2

D 504 Edgware Barnet 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 7.1 9.2 2.6 Low 4
B/B Brent Cross
D 578 Barnet 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.7 6.6 5.0 2.4 Medium 4
shopping centre
E 317 Colindale Barnet 0.5 2.9 0.5 1.5 0.5 7.0 9.0 2.3 Medium 4

Cat - category 66
B/B - ‘bus to bus’
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 334 Burnt Oak Barnet 0.5 3.0 0.5 1.2 0.5 6.8 8.4 2.6 Medium 4

E 372 New Southgate Barnet 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium 1

E 426 New Barnet Barnet 0.5 3.7 0.3 0.5 0.0 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 450 Oakleigh Park Barnet 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 2

E 524 Woodside Park Barnet 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 7.1 8.9 2.4 Low - medium 3

E 527 Totteridge & Whetstone Barnet 0.3 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.1 Low - medium 3

E 551 West Finchley Barnet 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 7.1 8.5 2.5 Low - medium 2

E 623 B/B North Finchley Barnet 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 5.3 4.5 2.4 Medium 4

E 168 Crayford Bexley 0.5 4.2 0.2 1.1 1.2 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 2

E 195 Erith Bexley 0.3 3.7 0.2 1.5 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.0 High 1

E 198 Slade Green Bexley 0.0 3.9 0.2 1.6 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 255 Belvedere Bexley 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.3 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 1

E 427 Bexleyheath Bexley 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.2 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 3

E 429 Bexley Bexley 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.0 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 2

E 433 Albany Park Bexley 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 438 Barnehurst Bexley 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.2 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 3

E 474 Welling Bexley 0.3 3.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 3

E 499 Sidcup Bexley 0.5 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.7 6.4 8.4 2.9 Low - medium 3

E 624 B/B Bexleyheath - Marketplace Bexley 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 4

C 121 Willesden Junction Brent 0.7 4.0 0.5 1.8 0.7 6.9 8.3 3.0 Medium - high 4

D 87 Wembley Central Brent 1.0 4.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 6.1 8.7 3.0 Medium - high 4

D 111 Harlesden Brent 0.2 4.3 0.5 2.1 0.8 6.2 7.9 3.0 High 3

67
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 166 Wembley Park Brent 0.8 3.4 0.4 1.5 0.9 7.7 9.1 2.8 Medium 4

D 200 Queen’s Park Brent 0.5 3.4 1.0 1.2 0.6 6.8 8.6 3.3 Medium 4

D 381 Wembley Stadium Brent 0.3 3.0 0.5 1.4 0.3 7.0 8.6 3.0 Low - medium 1

D 492 Sudbury & Harrow Road Brent 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.8 Low - medium 1

E 170 Kensal Green Brent 0.0 4.3 0.7 1.3 0.8 6.3 8.3 3.0 Medium - high 3

E 216 Kenton Brent 0.6 4.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 6.5 8.7 2.6 Medium - high 3

E 244 Kilburn Park Brent 0.8 3.0 1.1 1.1 0.5 6.7 8.6 3.2 Medium 4

E 257 Stonebridge Park Brent 0.0 3.4 0.4 1.7 0.7 6.2 7.8 2.4 Medium - high 3

E 276 North Wembley Brent 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 6.3 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 2

E 283 Preston Road Brent 0.5 3.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 6.7 9.1 2.4 Medium 3

E 291 South Kenton Brent 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 5.9 8.3 2.7 Medium - high 2

E 323 Northwick Park Brent 0.3 3.7 0.4 0.4 0.9 6.7 9.1 2.3 Medium 4

E 342 Neasden Brent 0.1 3.0 0.5 1.6 0.5 6.8 9.3 2.3 Medium 3

E 366 Brondesbury Brent 0.0 3.0 0.8 1.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 2

E 370 Kilburn Brent 0.0 3.0 0.8 1.1 0.5 6.7 8.9 3.1 Low - medium 4

E 385 Kensal Rise Brent 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 397 Alperton Brent 0.2 2.9 0.5 1.2 0.4 6.9 8.9 2.9 Low - medium 3

E 403 Dollis Hill Brent 0.0 3.0 0.6 1.1 0.5 7.1 8.6 2.5 Low - medium 3

E 404 Willesden Green Brent 0.3 2.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 7.1 8.8 2.7 Low - medium 4

E 439 Kingsbury Brent 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 7.3 9.3 2.1 Low - medium 4

E 442 Brondesbury Park Brent 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 1

E 490 Sudbury Town Brent 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 7.0 8.5 2.7 Low - medium 3

68
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 514 Queensbury Brent 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.6 9.6 2.2 Low 4

E 593 Grange Park Brent 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium 1

C 119 Bromley South Bromley 2.0 4.3 0.3 0.2 0.8 7.0 8.4 3.5 Medium 4

C 367 Orpington Bromley 0.2 4.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 7.0 8.4 3.3 Low - medium 4

D 97 Crystal Palace Bromley 0.4 5.3 0.4 0.8 1.2 7.0 8.6 3.3 Medium 3

D 233 Bromley North Bromley 1.2 3.9 0.4 0.4 0.8 7.0 8.6 3.1 Medium 1

D 288 Beckenham Junction Bromley 0.4 3.9 0.3 0.2 1.1 7.1 6.3 3.1 Medium - high 4

D 294 Penge West Bromley 0.2 3.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 7.0 8.6 3.3 Low - medium 1

D 569 Elmers End Bromley 0.0 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 7.0 8.6 2.9 Low 3

E 277 Anerley Bromley 0.0 4.2 0.5 1.0 0.4 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium 1

E 290 Kent House Bromley 0.3 3.8 0.4 0.5 1.1 5.1 8.4 3.0 Medium - high 2

E 369 Penge East Bromley 0.2 3.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 2

E 402 Petts Wood Bromley 0.5 3.4 0.2 0.0 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 3

E 410 Chislehurst Bromley 0.0 4.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 2

E 419 New Beckenham Bromley 0.0 3.4 0.3 0.4 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 2

E 434 Birkbeck Bromley 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 436 Elmstead Woods Bromley 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 2

E 449 Lower Sydenham Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 1

E 459 Shortlands Bromley 0.0 3.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 479 Bickley Bromley 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 2

E 501 St. Mary Cray Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.8 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium 2

E 509 Sundridge Park Bromley 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.9 Low - medium 1

69
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 510 Clock House Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.0 Low - medium 2

E 511 Knockholt Bromley 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.1 0.7 6.6 4.3 1.6 Medium 1

E 529 Ravensbourne Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium 1

E 570 Eden Park Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 1

E 573 West Wickham Bromley 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 2

E 577 Chelsfield Bromley 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.6 8.2 2.6 Low - medium 2

E 602 Hayes Bromley 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium 2

E 606 Beckenham Road Bromley 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.3 0.7 7.1 9.1 3.3 Low 1

E 609 Avenue Road Bromley 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.4 0.5 6.3 7.1 2.9 Medium 1

D 331 Chalfont & Latimer Buckinghamshire 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 7.2 8.6 3.1 Low - medium 2

D 331 Amersham Buckinghamshire 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 6.9 7.2 3.1 Medium - high 3

E 543 Chesham Buckinghamshire 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 7.0 8.4 2.6 Low - medium 1

A 1 King’s Cross St. Pancras Camden 5.6 10.0 2.2 2.3 1.5 7.6 8.0 5.0 Medium 6

B 6 Euston Camden 5.1 6.9 2.1 1.9 1.2 7.0 8.7 5.0 Medium 5

C 21 Holborn Camden 3.9 3.9 2.5 2.0 1.0 7.4 9.4 5.3 Medium 5

C 45 Euston Square Camden 1.5 4.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 6.8 6.7 4.8 Medium - high 4

C 55 Warren Street Camden 2.3 3.8 1.8 1.2 0.8 6.4 7.3 4.7 Medium - high 5

C 75 West Hampstead Camden 1.2 4.7 0.9 1.4 0.6 7.1 8.5 3.3 Medium 4

D 41 Chancery Lane Camden 2.8 3.4 2.4 1.4 0.9 7.1 8.5 4.9 Medium 5

D 52 Goodge Street Camden 2.0 3.4 2.7 1.3 0.7 7.3 8.6 5.1 Medium 4

D 57 Russell Square Camden 1.4 3.3 2.5 1.6 0.9 6.9 8.9 5.0 Medium 4

D 74 Camden Town Camden 2.5 3.3 1.0 1.2 0.8 6.9 8.5 2.9 Medium - high 5

70
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 103 Kentish Town Camden 0.6 4.8 1.1 1.0 0.6 7.3 9.1 2.9 Medium 4

D 108 Finchley Road Camden 1.0 4.3 0.9 1.1 0.5 7.1 8.9 3.5 Medium 5

D 124 Camden Road Camden 1.1 3.3 1.1 1.3 0.9 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium - high 3

D 355 Gospel Oak Camden 0.0 3.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 7.0 8.6 2.3 Medium 3

D 417 Belsize Park Camden 0.0 3.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 7.0 9.2 3.1 Low - medium 4

D 457 Hampstead Heath Camden 0.1 3.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.4 Low - medium 3

E 133 Mornington Crescent Camden 1.1 3.3 1.0 1.6 0.6 7.4 8.7 3.6 Medium 4

E 167 Kilburn High Road Camden 0.7 3.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.4 Medium 2

E 228 South Hampstead Camden 0.4 3.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.7 Medium 1

E 235 Swiss Cottage Camden 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 7.1 8.3 3.6 Medium 4

E 256 Kentish Town West Camden 0.3 3.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 2

E 312 Chalk Farm Camden 0.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 6.9 8.9 2.8 Low - medium 4

E 346 Finchley Road & Frognal Camden 0.2 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 3

E 478 Hampstead Camden 0.4 2.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 6.8 9.1 3.0 Low 4

B 3 Liverpool Street City of London 6.0 7.9 2.6 1.9 1.1 7.4 8.1 5.6 Medium 6

B 8 Blackfriars City of London 5.2 5.4 3.1 1.5 1.1 7.0 8.2 5.6 Medium 5

B 11 Moorgate City of London 4.0 6.1 2.7 1.6 1.2 7.1 8.6 5.7 Medium 5

B 13 Cannon Street City of London 4.8 5.1 3.1 0.9 0.9 7.1 9.1 5.4 Medium 5

B 23 Fenchurch Street City of London 3.7 4.2 2.7 1.6 0.8 7.0 8.2 5.2 Medium 5

C 9 Bank/Monument City of London 5.1 5.9 2.9 0.8 1.2 7.2 8.9 6.0 Medium 6

C 28 Barbican City of London 2.1 4.8 2.8 1.8 0.9 7.1 7.3 5.0 Medium 4

C 33 Aldgate City of London 2.3 4.6 2.3 2.0 0.8 6.9 7.2 5.0 Medium 4

71
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
C 38 City Thameslink City of London 1.3 4.5 3.1 1.3 1.0 7.0 8.4 5.0 Medium 4

C 70 Tower Gateway City of London 1.1 3.2 2.3 1.7 0.8 7.6 9.1 4.4 Medium 2

D 46 St. Paul’s City of London 2.1 3.3 3.3 0.9 0.9 7.6 9.2 5.6 Medium 4

D 51 Mansion House City of London 1.2 3.7 3.2 1.1 0.9 7.5 8.6 6.0 Medium 4

C 20 East Croydon Croydon 4.8 5.7 0.7 1.4 0.9 7.0 8.0 4.7 Medium 5

C 39 West Croydon Croydon 1.5 6.1 0.7 1.8 0.9 6.5 7.8 3.9 Medium - high 4

D 128 Norwood Junction Croydon 0.8 4.7 0.5 0.9 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.9 Medium 4

D 193 Wellesley Road Croydon 1.5 2.7 0.7 1.4 0.5 7.6 9.2 4.2 Low - medium 2

D 231 George Street Croydon 1.2 2.7 0.7 1.4 0.5 7.0 8.6 3.9 Low - medium 4

D 302 Church Street Croydon 0.7 2.6 0.7 1.4 0.5 7.6 8.8 3.9 Low - medium 3

D 307 Centrale Croydon 0.7 2.6 0.7 1.5 0.5 7.0 8.6 3.9 Low - medium 2

D 328 Reeves Corner Croydon 0.6 2.6 0.7 1.4 0.5 6.6 9.0 3.7 Low - medium 1

D 576 New Addington Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.3 1.0 0.5 8.5 5.8 3.0 Medium 3

D 603 Addington Village Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.9 0.4 7.0 8.6 2.3 Low - medium 2

E 220 Purley Croydon 0.5 4.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 4

E 226 South Croydon Croydon 0.0 4.3 0.4 1.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 2

E 301 Norbury Croydon 0.4 3.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 3

E 357 Coulsdon South Croydon 0.3 3.7 0.2 0.3 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 2

E 395 Thornton Heath Croydon 0.3 3.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 3

E 423 Selhurst Croydon 0.1 2.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 2

E 451 Purley Oaks Croydon 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 522 Waddon Croydon 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 1

72
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 531 Wandle Park Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.6 1.2 0.4 7.8 9.0 2.9 Low 1

E 538 Smitham Croydon 0.3 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.6 6.6 8.2 1.9 Medium 1

E 545 Addiscombe Croydon 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 7.7 8.7 3.3 Low 3

E 546 Lebanon Road Croydon 0.3 2.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 7.7 8.2 3.7 Low 2

E 565 Riddlesdown Croydon 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 6.6 8.2 2.8 Low - medium 1

E 571 Kenley Croydon 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.8 Low - medium 1

E 575 King Henry’s Drive Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.3 1.1 0.5 6.8 7.5 2.8 Medium 1

E 582 Fieldway Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.2 1.0 0.5 7.2 8.0 3.0 Low - medium 2

E 583 Reedham Croydon 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium 1

E 589 Waddon Marsh Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 7.0 9.0 2.5 Low 2

E 592 Sanderstead Croydon 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.8 Low - medium 2

E 594 Sandilands Croydon 0.2 2.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 7.8 8.4 3.3 Low 3

E 596 Ampere Way Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 8.2 9.3 2.7 Low 2

E 597 Woodside Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 7.0 7.9 2.6 Low - medium 2

E 598 Arena Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 6.6 6.6 2.6 Medium 2

E 600 Blackhorse Lane Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 7.2 7.4 2.6 Low - medium 2

E 605 Therapia Lane Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.3 7.5 8.8 2.7 Low 2

E 607 Harrington Road Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 7.0 6.8 2.8 Medium 1

E 608 Woodmansterne Croydon 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.8 Low - medium 1

E 615 Lloyd Park Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 7.6 8.4 2.1 Low 1

E 617 Gravel Hill Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 7.4 7.4 2.3 Medium 1

E 618 Coombe Lane Croydon 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 7.4 6.1 1.6 Medium 1

73
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
B 62 Ealing Broadway Ealing 1.9 5.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 7.3 8.6 3.7 Medium 5

B 115 Southall Ealing 0.4 4.8 0.5 1.8 0.2 7.0 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 2

B 148 Hanwell Ealing 0.4 4.7 0.4 0.5 1.2 7.0 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 1

B 189 West Ealing Ealing 0.0 4.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 7.0 8.2 3.0 Medium 2

B 278 Acton Main Line Ealing 0.0 4.2 0.4 1.1 0.3 7.0 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

D 359 Acton Town Ealing 0.1 3.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 6.7 8.8 2.8 Low - medium 4

D 407 Greenford Ealing 0.0 3.4 0.3 0.5 1.0 6.6 7.2 2.2 Medium - high 4

D 425 Ealing Common Ealing 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.9 8.8 2.8 Low - medium 4

D 470 Park Royal Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 7.1 8.8 2.7 Low - medium 3

D 476 South Ealing Ealing 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 6.7 9.1 2.5 Low - medium 4

E 296 North Acton Ealing 0.9 3.0 0.3 1.5 0.3 6.7 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 4

E 343 Northolt Park Ealing 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium 1

E 393 Acton Central Ealing 0.2 3.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 2

E 444 South Greenford Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.8 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 1

E 453 Hanger Lane Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 6.9 8.9 2.3 Low - medium 4

E 466 Drayton Green Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 1

E 472 South Acton Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 483 Northolt Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.8 0.5 7.1 9.2 2.2 Low - medium 4

E 486 Castle Bar Park Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.7 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.1 Low - medium 1

E 488 Chiswick Park Ealing 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.7 Low - medium 3

E 517 West Acton Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.8 0.2 6.9 8.9 2.3 Low - medium 3

E 528 Perivale Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.6 7.3 9.1 2.4 Low 3

74
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 540 Northfields Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.2 0.6 6.9 8.7 2.5 Low - medium 4

E 558 North Ealing Ealing 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 7.1 8.9 2.8 Low 2

E 595 B/B Southall Broadway Ealing 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.4 4.6 3.1 2.7 Medium 4

E 616 B/B Acton Town Centre Ealing 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.4 5.0 4.9 2.6 Medium 4

E 621 B/B Greenford Broadway Ealing 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 5.0 4.6 2.4 Medium 4

D 98 Edmonton Green Enfield 0.5 4.3 0.6 1.9 0.8 4.7 8.2 2.8 High 3

D 405 Enfield Town Enfield 0.7 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.2 Medium 2

D 477 Southgate Enfield 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.5 7.2 8.9 2.7 Low - medium 4

D 523 Arnos Grove Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.5 7.2 8.9 2.7 Low 4

D 547 Cockfosters Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.7 7.1 7.1 2.1 Medium 3

D 561 Oakwood Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 7.2 8.8 2.3 Low 3

E 129 Silver Street Enfield 0.4 3.8 0.6 2.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.2 High 1

E 203 Ponders End Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.7 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 1

E 211 Angel Road Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.3 2.0 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.0 High 1

E 215 Enfield Lock Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.6 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 2

E 298 Brimsdown Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.2 1.5 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 319 Turkey Street Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.3 1.6 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 1

E 349 Enfield Chase Enfield 0.5 3.7 0.3 0.3 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 383 Gordon Hill Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.5 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 396 Southbury Enfield 0.0 3.0 0.3 1.4 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 1

E 412 Palmers Green Enfield 0.5 2.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium 3

E 500 Crews Hill Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 6.6 8.2 4.2 Low 1

75
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 512 Bush Hill Park Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 1

E 590 Winchmore Hill Enfield 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 2

E 591 Hadley Wood Enfield 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.6 8.2 4.3 Low 1

E 507 Buckhurst Hill Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 5.5 8.8 2.6 Medium 3

E 508 Chigwell Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 6.9 8.5 2.6 Low - medium 1

E 550 Loughton Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.8 8.8 2.6 Low - medium 3

E 555 Debden Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.6 9.2 2.6 Low 3

E 555 Epping Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.9 9.1 2.6 Low 3

E 555 Theydon Bois Essex 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.9 9.1 2.6 Low 1

B 49 Woolwich Arsenal Greenwich 0.8 5.6 0.5 2.3 1.1 7.0 8.2 3.2 Medium - high 4

B 152 Abbey Wood Greenwich 0.0 4.2 0.3 1.7 1.0 7.0 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 3

D 86 Greenwich Greenwich 0.6 4.3 1.0 1.7 0.9 7.6 7.3 2.6 Medium - high 4

E 130 Charlton Greenwich 0.0 4.3 0.4 1.8 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 3

E 207 Cutty Sark Greenwich 0.2 3.0 1.3 1.4 0.8 7.9 7.7 2.6 Medium 3

E 219 Maze Hill Greenwich 0.0 3.8 0.8 1.4 0.7 5.9 8.7 3.1 Medium - high 2

E 241 Kidbrooke Greenwich 0.0 3.7 0.3 1.7 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 2

E 253 Eltham Greenwich 0.6 3.8 0.3 0.8 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 3

E 266 Deptford Bridge Greenwich 0.3 3.0 0.7 1.6 0.6 7.0 7.3 2.8 Medium - high 2

E 271 Plumstead Greenwich 0.2 3.1 0.5 1.8 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium 2

E 275 Woolwich Dockyard Greenwich 0.1 3.0 0.3 1.9 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 1

E 308 North Greenwich Greenwich 0.3 2.9 0.2 1.8 0.8 7.8 8.0 2.0 Medium 5

E 310 Mottingham Greenwich 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.9 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 2

76
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 353 New Eltham Greenwich 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.5 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 3

E 391 Westcombe Park Greenwich 0.0 3.0 0.4 1.3 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 2

E 398 Falconwood Greenwich 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.2 1.2 6.6 8.2 2.0 Medium - high 2

E 620 B/B Eltham High Street Greenwich 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.6 5.4 4.0 2.3 Medium 3

C 145 Dalston Junction Hackney 0.8 3.1 1.0 2.0 0.5 7.0 8.4 3.0 Medium 3

D 250 Manor House Hackney 0.4 3.0 0.8 1.3 0.9 7.2 8.7 3.0 Medium 4

D 273 Homerton Hackney 0.0 3.0 0.7 1.8 0.6 7.0 8.6 2.4 Medium 3

E 116 Dalston Kingsland Hackney 1.0 3.1 1.1 2.0 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 4

E 136 Clapton Hackney 0.0 3.8 0.9 2.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.4 High 1

E 147 Hoxton Hackney 0.7 3.1 1.1 1.9 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 2

E 157 Hackney Downs Hackney 0.1 3.7 1.0 1.9 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 2

E 162 Stoke Newington Hackney 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.9 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 176 Rectory Road Hackney 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.9 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 192 Hackney Central Hackney 0.3 3.3 1.0 1.6 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 3

E 209 Stamford Hill Hackney 0.0 3.1 0.9 2.0 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 1

E 225 London Fields Hackney 0.4 3.1 1.0 1.5 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 230 Hackney Wick Hackney 0.0 2.9 0.4 2.4 0.9 6.6 8.2 1.8 High 2

E 234 Haggerston Hackney 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.7 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 2

E 237 Cambridge Heath Hackney 0.1 3.1 1.1 1.5 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1
Shepherd’s Bush Hammersmith &
D 35 3.6 4.9 1.1 1.5 0.6 8.3 9.5 3.1 Medium 5
(Central line) Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 79 Hammersmith (District line) 1.7 4.4 1.0 0.7 0.8 7.3 8.3 3.5 Medium 5
Fulham

77
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
Hammersmith &
D 93 Hammersmith (H&C line) 2.2 3.6 1.0 0.7 0.6 6.9 8.8 3.4 Medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 118 Shepherd’s Bush Market 0.7 3.6 1.2 1.6 0.6 7.0 8.7 2.9 Medium 3
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 141 Goldhawk Road 0.6 3.6 1.2 1.4 0.5 6.5 8.3 3.3 Medium - high 3
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 144 Wood Lane 0.4 3.5 1.2 1.8 0.6 7.9 8.6 2.7 Medium 3
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 161 White City 0.8 3.0 1.1 1.8 0.5 7.4 9.0 2.7 Medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 281 West Kensington 0.1 3.0 1.2 1.4 0.4 6.9 8.5 3.4 Low - medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 287 Imperial Wharf 0.5 3.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 7.0 8.6 2.6 Medium 1
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 373 Kensington Olympia 0.1 2.7 1.1 0.9 0.6 7.0 8.6 3.5 Low - medium 3
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 389 East Acton 0.0 3.0 0.4 1.4 0.5 7.2 9.1 2.6 Low - medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
D 401 Putney Bridge 0.3 3.1 0.7 0.3 0.9 7.5 9.6 2.9 Low 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
E 213 Fulham Broadway 1.3 2.9 1.1 0.8 0.5 8.0 9.4 2.9 Low - medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
E 236 Barons Court 0.3 3.4 1.2 1.1 0.6 6.6 9.1 3.3 Medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
E 336 Parsons Green 0.8 2.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 6.9 8.2 2.9 Medium 4
Fulham
Hammersmith &
E 378 Ravenscourt Park 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 7.0 9.0 3.1 Low - medium 3
Fulham
C 77 Seven Sisters Haringey 0.7 4.4 0.8 2.0 0.8 6.7 8.6 2.8 Medium - high 5

78
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
C 80 Tottenham Hale Haringey 0.8 4.2 0.5 2.1 1.0 6.9 9.0 2.9 Medium 4

D 107 Wood Green Haringey 1.8 3.1 0.7 1.8 0.5 6.9 9.0 3.3 Medium 4

D 208 Turnpike Lane Haringey 0.9 3.1 0.8 1.4 0.5 6.8 8.0 3.1 Medium - high 4

D 498 Highgate Haringey 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.8 7.4 9.5 2.3 Low 4

E 151 Northumberland Park Haringey 0.0 3.7 0.5 2.2 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.2 High 1

E 155 Alexandra Palace Haringey 0.5 3.7 0.5 1.7 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium - high 2

E 206 Bruce Grove Haringey 0.2 3.0 0.8 2.1 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 210 Hornsey Haringey 0.0 3.7 0.7 1.6 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 2

E 221 South Tottenham Haringey 0.0 3.1 0.8 1.9 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 2

E 242 White Hart Lane Haringey 0.1 2.9 0.6 2.1 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1

E 246 Harringay Haringey 0.3 3.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 2

E 263 Harringay Green Lanes Haringey 0.5 2.9 0.7 1.1 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 2

E 345 Bowes Park Haringey 0.0 3.7 0.5 0.9 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.3 Medium 1

E 461 Bounds Green Haringey 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.9 0.5 7.1 9.2 3.0 Low 4

E 622 B/B Muswell Hill Haringey 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 5.4 4.7 2.4 Medium 4

D 84 Harrow & Wealdstone Harrow 0.5 5.2 0.5 1.4 0.9 6.2 8.5 2.5 High 4

D 88 Harrow-on-the-Hill Harrow 1.6 4.3 0.5 1.2 0.9 6.6 8.7 2.4 Medium - high 4

D 414 Rayners Lane Harrow 0.5 3.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 6.3 7.3 2.6 Medium - high 4

D 519 Stanmore Harrow 0.2 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.9 7.7 9.5 2.3 Low 3

E 420 Pinner Harrow 0.5 3.7 0.3 0.1 0.5 7.3 9.1 2.3 Low - medium 3

E 469 South Harrow Harrow 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.6 0.3 6.6 8.6 2.2 Medium 3

E 480 Sudbury Hill, Harrow Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 1

79
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 481 Sudbury Hill Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.5 0.9 6.6 9.0 2.8 Low - medium 3

E 503 West Harrow Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 6.7 9.3 2.4 Low - medium 2

E 516 Headstone Lane Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.6 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 1

E 521 North Harrow Harrow 0.4 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 7.2 8.8 2.2 Low - medium 3

E 533 Hatch End Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 1

E 568 Canons Park Harrow 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.5 7.4 9.4 2.3 Low 3

B 120 Romford Havering 1.0 4.9 0.4 0.5 0.9 7.0 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 4

B 316 Harold Wood Havering 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.3 1.2 7.0 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 3

B 446 Gidea Park Havering 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 7.0 8.2 2.5 Medium 3

D 400 Upminster Havering 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.8 7.3 8.2 2.4 Medium 4

E 245 Rainham Havering 0.5 3.7 0.1 1.3 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 2

E 502 Elm Park Havering 0.4 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 6.8 8.5 2.0 Medium 3

E 537 Upminster Bridge Havering 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.8 7.2 9.0 2.1 Low - medium 2

E 549 Hornchurch Havering 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.6 6.4 7.7 2.2 Medium 3

E 564 Emerson Park Havering 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.5 6.6 8.2 1.8 Medium 1

E 619 B/B Romford Market Havering 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 4.4 4.4 2.5 Medium 4

D 348 Rickmansworth Hertfordshire 0.0 4.1 0.7 0.7 0.0 6.9 8.1 3.1 Medium 3

D 525 Watford High Street Hertfordshire 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 7.0 8.6 3.1 Low 2

E 197 Watford Hertfordshire 0.0 5.6 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.9 9.0 2.6 Medium 3

E 375 Moor Park Hertfordshire 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.7 0.4 7.0 8.5 2.6 Medium 2

E 376 Bushey Hertfordshire 0.0 4.1 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 1

E 376 Chorleywood Hertfordshire 0.0 4.1 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.6 7.8 2.6 Medium - high 2

80
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 543 Croxley Hertfordshire 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.5 8.2 2.6 Medium 2

E 553 Carpenders Park Hertfordshire 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 6.6 8.2 2.6 Low - medium 2
Heathrow Central
A 68 Hillingdon 0.2 5.9 0.6 1.7 0.7 7.3 7.7 2.5 High 4
(Terminals 1, 2, 3)
A 110 Heathrow Terminal 5 Hillingdon 0.0 5.6 0.1 1.7 0.5 8.6 8.1 3.4 Medium 4

A 174 Heathrow Terminal 4 Hillingdon 0.0 5.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 7.9 9.1 2.7 Low - medium 3

B 89 Hayes & Harlington Hillingdon 0.5 4.8 0.4 1.5 1.3 7.0 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 3

B 143 West Drayton Hillingdon 0.5 4.2 0.2 1.2 1.2 7.0 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 2

D 122 Uxbridge Hillingdon 1.6 4.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 6.3 8.9 2.7 Medium - high 4

D 382 South Ruislip Hillingdon 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 7.4 9.3 2.7 Low - medium 3

D 424 Hillingdon Hillingdon 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 6.4 9.1 2.0 Medium 2

D 455 Eastcote Hillingdon 0.4 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.5 6.6 9.2 2.6 Low - medium 3

D 580 West Ruislip Hillingdon 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 7.7 9.2 2.6 Low 2

E 415 Northwood Hillingdon 0.5 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.6 7.0 8.9 2.6 Low - medium 3

E 454 Northwood Hills Hillingdon 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 6.9 8.4 2.2 Medium 2

E 535 Ruislip Hillingdon 0.3 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 6.3 9.4 2.6 Low - medium 3

E 536 Ruislip Manor Hillingdon 0.1 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 6.8 9.2 2.2 Low - medium 3

E 567 Ickenham Hillingdon 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 6.0 9.1 2.4 Low - medium 2

E 587 Ruislip Gardens Hillingdon 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 7.5 9.3 2.8 Low 2

D 153 Feltham Hounslow 0.5 4.2 0.3 1.5 0.8 7.6 7.9 3.3 Medium 4

D 205 Hounslow Hounslow 0.5 3.8 0.6 1.1 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.6 Medium 2

D 252 Hounslow Central Hounslow 1.0 3.1 0.6 1.1 0.5 6.6 9.0 3.0 Medium 4

81
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 364 Gunnersbury Hounslow 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 6.6 8.5 2.6 Medium 4

D 368 Hounslow East Hounslow 0.5 3.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 6.6 9.0 2.7 Low - medium 4

D 406 Turnham Green Hounslow 0.0 3.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 6.5 9.1 3.1 Low - medium 4

D 418 Hounslow West Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.4 1.3 0.5 7.2 8.9 3.1 Low - medium 3

D 430 Hatton Cross Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.1 1.1 0.8 7.5 9.0 2.3 Low - medium 3

E 204 Kew Bridge Hounslow 0.9 3.7 0.4 0.6 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.1 High 2

E 258 Brentford Hounslow 0.2 3.8 0.4 0.8 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 2

E 384 Chiswick Hounslow 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.4 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 2

E 437 Isleworth Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.3 1.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 2

E 441 Stamford Brook Hounslow 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.5 0.6 6.6 9.2 2.8 Low - medium 3

E 482 Syon Lane Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.0 Medium 1

E 534 Boston Manor Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.2 0.8 6.9 8.9 2.2 Low - medium 3

E 542 Osterley Hounslow 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 7.0 9.0 2.3 Low - medium 3

B 16 Farringdon Islington 2.9 6.0 2.5 1.6 0.8 6.7 7.0 4.7 Medium - high 5

C 27 Old Street Islington 3.1 4.9 1.8 1.9 0.9 6.7 8.8 3.9 Medium 5

C 31 Finsbury Park Islington 3.1 5.4 1.0 1.5 1.4 6.3 7.7 3.5 Medium - high 5

C 42 Highbury & Islington Islington 2.9 4.8 1.0 1.3 0.9 6.4 8.9 3.9 Medium 5

D 64 Angel Islington 2.4 3.2 1.5 1.3 0.8 7.4 8.9 3.4 Medium 5

D 318 Archway Islington 0.5 3.1 0.8 1.1 0.3 7.0 8.7 2.8 Low - medium 4

E 137 Essex Road Islington 0.7 3.9 1.1 1.2 0.7 6.6 8.2 3.3 Medium - high 1

E 159 Drayton Park Islington 0.2 3.7 1.0 1.7 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium - high 1

E 218 Arsenal Islington 0.1 3.0 1.1 1.7 0.6 7.8 9.1 3.3 Low - medium 3

82
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
Caledonian Road &
E 224 Islington 0.5 2.9 1.0 1.5 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 2
Barnsbury
E 251 Caledonian Road Islington 0.2 3.0 0.9 1.8 0.4 7.3 8.8 3.1 Low - medium 4

E 259 Holloway Road Islington 0.0 3.1 1.0 1.8 0.4 6.8 8.2 3.3 Medium 4

E 265 Canonbury Islington 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.2 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium 2

E 270 Upper Holloway Islington 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.2 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 306 Crouch Hill Islington 0.0 3.0 0.8 1.2 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 344 B/B Holloway Nags Head Islington 0.0 2.7 1.0 1.6 0.4 4.8 6.5 3.2 Medium - high 4

E 365 Tufnell Park Islington 0.1 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.5 7.1 9.5 2.8 Low - medium 4
Kensington &
C 47 South Kensington 3.1 4.1 2.5 0.3 0.4 6.9 7.5 3.8 Medium - high 5
Chelsea
Kensington &
C 61 Earl’s Court 2.2 4.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 6.8 8.1 3.8 Medium 5
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 56 Notting Hill Gate 2.5 4.9 1.1 0.4 0.8 6.3 8.3 3.3 Medium - high 5
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 85 High Street Kensington 1.9 4.4 1.1 0.3 0.8 7.5 8.6 3.6 Medium 4
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 95 Gloucester Road 1.1 4.0 2.2 0.4 0.5 7.3 8.6 3.8 Medium 4
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 102 Knightsbridge 3.2 3.1 0.8 0.2 0.7 7.7 9.0 3.9 Medium 5
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 113 West Brompton 0.4 4.0 1.2 1.4 0.8 7.1 8.8 3.3 Medium 4
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 114 Sloane Square 1.7 3.5 1.2 0.8 0.5 7.3 8.1 3.8 Medium 4
Chelsea
Kensington &
D 202 Ladbroke Grove 0.4 3.5 1.2 1.2 0.5 6.5 8.4 2.6 Medium - high 4
Chelsea

83
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
Kensington &
E 217 Latimer Road 0.0 3.4 1.2 1.5 0.5 6.6 8.3 2.7 Medium - high 3
Chelsea
Kensington &
E 352 Holland Park 0.3 3.0 1.1 0.7 0.5 7.0 8.7 3.1 Low - medium 4
Chelsea
Kingston upon
C 135 Kingston 1.7 3.9 0.5 0.3 1.1 7.0 8.4 2.8 Medium - high 4
Thames
Kingston upon
C 409 Surbiton 0.7 3.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 6.2 8.3 2.9 Medium 4
Thames
Kingston upon
D 314 New Malden 0.4 4.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 5.5 8.9 2.4 Medium - high 4
Thames
Kingston upon
D 493 Tolworth 0.3 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 6.3 7.8 2.5 Medium 1
Thames
Kingston upon
E 362 Berrylands 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.3 1.1 3.3 7.4 2.3 Medium - high 1
Thames
Kingston upon
E 380 Norbiton 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 6.3 9.0 2.7 Medium 3
Thames
Kingston upon
E 515 Malden Manor 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 1.0 3.4 8.7 2.4 Medium 1
Thames
Kingston upon
E 560 Chessington North 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.7 5.2 8.1 2.6 Medium 1
Thames
Kingston upon
E 584 Chessington South 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 5.9 7.0 2.5 Medium 1
Thames
B 2 Waterloo Lambeth 5.5 8.8 2.8 1.9 1.3 7.1 8.0 6.2 Medium 6

C 37 Vauxhall Lambeth 2.9 4.4 1.2 1.6 1.2 6.8 8.9 3.6 Medium 5

D 59 Brixton Lambeth 2.2 4.8 1.1 1.2 0.3 6.3 9.2 3.7 Medium 5

D 78 Lambeth North Lambeth 1.1 3.4 1.9 1.6 0.7 7.1 9.1 5.0 Medium 3

D 90 Stockwell Lambeth 2.0 3.5 1.2 1.3 0.4 7.4 9.4 3.7 Medium 5

84
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 160 Streatham Lambeth 0.4 4.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 7.0 8.6 2.8 Medium 3

D 179 Tulse Hill Lambeth 0.8 4.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 7.0 8.6 3.2 Medium 3

D 191 Herne Hill Lambeth 0.4 4.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 7.0 8.6 2.9 Medium 4

E 190 Clapham High Street Lambeth 0.4 3.8 1.0 1.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 1

E 196 Clapham North Lambeth 0.6 3.8 1.1 1.0 0.4 7.0 9.1 3.4 Low - medium 4

E 239 Loughborough Junction Lambeth 0.0 3.7 0.9 1.3 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium 2

E 243 Oval Lambeth 0.5 3.1 1.0 1.3 0.5 7.1 9.1 3.3 Low - medium 4

E 247 Streatham Common Lambeth 0.4 3.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium 4

E 260 Wandsworth Road Lambeth 0.5 2.9 0.9 1.5 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 1

E 279 Clapham Common Lambeth 0.8 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 7.2 9.3 3.2 Low - medium 4

E 309 Gipsy Hill Lambeth 0.2 3.8 0.5 1.0 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 3

E 379 West Norwood Lambeth 0.5 3.0 0.6 1.0 0.3 6.6 8.2 3.6 Low - medium 3

E 443 Streatham Hill Lambeth 0.0 3.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 6.6 8.2 3.3 Low - medium 3

C 72 Lewisham Lewisham 0.4 5.4 0.6 1.6 0.9 6.9 7.9 3.4 Medium - high 4

D 82 Catford Bridge Lewisham 1.2 4.3 0.6 1.6 0.8 7.0 8.6 3.0 Medium 3

D 96 Catford Lewisham 0.9 4.3 0.6 1.6 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium - high 2

D 109 New Cross Gate Lewisham 0.4 4.4 0.7 1.8 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.8 Medium - high 4

D 156 New Cross Lewisham 0.4 3.5 0.8 1.7 0.8 7.0 8.6 3.3 Medium 3

D 182 Ladywell Lewisham 0.6 3.5 0.6 1.5 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.9 Medium 2

D 280 Hither Green Lewisham 0.0 3.7 0.6 1.1 0.7 7.0 8.6 3.0 Medium 4

E 132 Deptford Lewisham 0.4 3.7 0.7 1.7 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.3 High 2

E 178 Forest Hill Lewisham 0.4 4.2 0.5 0.9 0.9 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 3

85
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 188 Brockley Lewisham 0.0 4.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 3

E 238 Grove Park Lewisham 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.9 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 3

E 248 Honor Oak Park Lewisham 0.0 4.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 3

E 269 Crofton Park Lewisham 0.0 3.7 0.5 0.9 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 1

E 272 Beckenham Hill Lewisham 0.1 3.7 0.3 1.1 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 1

E 284 Blackheath Lewisham 0.5 3.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 3

E 293 Sydenham Lewisham 0.4 3.4 0.5 0.9 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 3

E 304 Bellingham Lewisham 0.0 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 337 Elverson Road Lewisham 0.0 3.1 0.6 1.5 0.5 6.4 8.3 3.1 Medium 1

E 338 Lee Lewisham 0.1 3.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium 2

E 340 St. John’s Lewisham 0.0 3.0 0.7 1.5 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.1 Medium 1

C 53 Wimbledon Merton 3.4 5.3 0.5 0.1 0.8 7.0 8.4 3.1 Medium - high 5

D 315 Mitcham Junction Merton 0.0 4.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 6.1 8.8 2.4 Medium - high 2

D 464 Raynes Park Merton 0.0 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 7.2 7.4 2.8 Medium 4

D 485 Morden Merton 0.5 3.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 7.7 9.2 2.5 Low 4

E 322 Haydons Road Merton 0.0 3.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 1

E 413 Morden South Merton 0.1 3.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1

E 422 Colliers Wood Merton 0.0 2.9 0.7 1.0 0.5 6.8 9.1 2.9 Low - medium 4

E 432 St. Helier Merton 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.6 0.3 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1

E 440 Tooting Merton 0.0 2.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 2

E 463 Wimbledon Chase Merton 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 1

E 471 Motspur Park Merton 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.5 3.6 6.7 2.1 Medium - high 2

86
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 489 South Merton Merton 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 494 South Wimbledon Merton 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 7.1 9.3 2.9 Low 4

E 552 Mitcham Merton 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.7 0.3 4.8 6.3 2.2 Medium 3

E 579 Phipps Bridge Merton 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 7.6 8.9 2.3 Low 2

E 581 Dundonald Road Merton 0.5 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.5 7.3 9.4 2.9 Low 1

E 588 Belgrave Walk Merton 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 6.9 7.4 2.3 Medium 1

E 599 Morden Road Merton 0.1 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.5 9.4 2.5 Medium 2

E 601 Mitcham Eastfields Merton 0.1 2.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.4 Low 1

E 610 Wimbledon Park Merton 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 7.1 9.2 2.5 Low 3

E 613 Merton Park Merton 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.4 6.7 7.2 2.6 Medium 1

A 254 London City Airport Newham 0.0 3.7 0.2 1.8 0.6 7.7 8.1 3.9 Low - medium 2

B 25 Stratford Newham 2.3 6.8 0.5 2.3 0.7 7.3 7.9 3.2 Medium - high 5

B 99 Maryland Newham 0.5 4.3 0.7 2.0 0.6 7.0 8.2 3.1 Medium - high 1

B 126 Forest Gate Newham 0.5 4.2 0.8 1.3 0.8 7.0 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 3

B 140 Custom House Newham 0.0 4.2 0.4 2.2 0.6 5.6 8.9 2.6 High 2

B 171 Manor Park Newham 0.0 4.3 0.6 1.4 0.8 7.0 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 2

B 180 Stratford International Newham 0.0 4.1 0.4 2.0 0.4 7.0 8.2 2.9 Medium 1

C 60 West Ham Newham 0.9 4.9 0.5 2.1 1.2 7.2 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 4

D 123 Upton Park Newham 1.3 3.5 1.0 1.3 0.6 7.2 8.3 2.8 Medium 4

D 127 Canning Town Newham 0.3 3.5 0.4 2.4 0.9 7.4 8.1 2.4 Medium - high 5

D 329 King George V Newham 0.0 2.9 0.2 1.9 0.7 7.0 8.6 3.8 Low - medium 1

D 354 Pontoon Dock Newham 0.0 2.9 0.2 2.0 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.6 Medium 1

87
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 356 West Silvertown Newham 0.0 2.9 0.2 1.9 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium 1

E 175 Plaistow Newham 0.0 3.4 0.8 1.9 0.8 6.9 9.1 2.9 Medium 4

E 177 East Ham Newham 0.8 3.5 0.9 1.2 0.5 6.9 9.5 3.1 Medium 4

E 261 Pudding Mill Lane Newham 0.0 2.9 0.5 2.0 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 262 Royal Victoria Newham 0.0 2.9 0.4 2.4 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 2

E 267 Beckton Newham 0.4 2.9 0.3 1.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 1

E 292 Stratford High Street Newham 0.6 2.3 0.5 2.1 0.6 6.6 8.2 3.2 Medium 1

E 299 Cyprus Newham 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.9 0.9 4.9 4.5 3.5 Medium - high 2

E 320 Prince Regent Newham 0.0 2.9 0.4 1.9 0.6 5.8 8.3 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 321 Gallions Reach Newham 0.0 2.9 0.1 1.9 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium 1

E 324 Royal Albert Newham 0.0 2.9 0.3 1.8 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium 1

E 327 Beckton Park Newham 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.7 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium 1

E 330 Wanstead Park Newham 0.3 2.9 0.7 1.2 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 1

E 341 Woodgrange Park Newham 0.0 3.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium 1

E 360 Star Lane Newham 0.2 2.1 0.4 2.3 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 1

E 388 Abbey Road Newham 0.0 2.1 0.5 2.0 0.7 6.6 8.2 3.3 Medium 1

E 563 B/B East Ham - Town Hall Newham 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.4 5.7 4.6 3.1 Medium 4

B 67 Ilford Redbridge 1.4 4.5 0.7 1.7 0.8 7.0 8.2 3.4 Medium 4

B 212 Seven Kings Redbridge 0.0 4.2 0.5 1.1 0.8 7.0 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 3

B 240 Chadwell Heath Redbridge 0.4 4.2 0.5 0.8 0.6 7.0 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 3

B 305 Goodmayes Redbridge 0.0 4.2 0.5 0.7 0.5 7.0 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 3

D 460 Gants Hill Redbridge 0.4 3.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 7.2 8.9 2.4 Low - medium 4

88
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 505 Wanstead Redbridge 0.5 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 7.8 9.3 2.2 Low 3

D 548 Woodford Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 6.4 8.7 2.6 Low - medium 4

D 566 Redbridge Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 7.3 8.8 2.5 Low 3

E 491 South Woodford Redbridge 0.4 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.5 6.7 9.0 2.5 Low - medium 4

E 530 Newbury Park Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.6 8.6 2.5 Low - medium 4

E 532 Barkingside Redbridge 0.2 2.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 7.2 9.2 2.5 Low 2

E 541 Snaresbrook Redbridge 0.1 2.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 7.3 9.2 2.2 Low 3

E 554 Fairlop Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 7.4 8.9 2.0 Low - medium 2

E 562 Grange Hill Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.7 0.4 6.9 8.2 3.3 Low - medium 1

E 586 Hainault Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.4 0.2 7.6 9.1 2.4 Low 3

E 612 Roding Valley Redbridge 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 6.9 8.5 2.2 Low - medium 1
Richmond upon
C 106 Richmond 1.3 4.9 0.4 0.1 1.3 7.0 8.4 3.6 Medium 4
Thames
Richmond upon
D 347 Mortlake 0.3 3.7 0.5 0.1 1.0 7.0 8.6 2.8 Low - medium 3
Thames
Richmond upon
D 408 Barnes 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.3 0.8 7.0 8.6 2.6 Low - medium 3
Thames
Richmond upon
D 487 Kew Gardens 0.0 3.4 0.3 0.1 0.8 7.1 8.6 3.5 Low 4
Thames
Richmond upon
E 339 Fulwell 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.1 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1
Thames
Richmond upon
E 374 Barnes Bridge 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.3 1.1 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1
Thames
Richmond upon
E 399 Twickenham 0.4 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium 4
Thames

89
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
Richmond upon
E 452 Hampton Wick 0.4 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium 2
Thames
Richmond upon
E 484 Teddington 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 3
Thames
Richmond upon
E 506 Whitton 0.5 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.0 Medium 2
Thames
Richmond upon
E 539 Strawberry Hill 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 2
Thames
Richmond upon
E 559 North Sheen 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 3.0 Low - medium 1
Thames
Richmond upon
E 572 Hampton 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.1 Low - medium 2
Thames
Richmond upon
E 574 St. Margarets 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 3
Thames
B 4 London Bridge Southwark 5.7 7.5 2.9 1.6 1.5 7.0 7.6 5.2 Medium 6

B 15 Elephant & Castle Southwark 4.1 5.6 1.4 1.8 0.8 7.4 8.9 3.5 Medium 5

C 142 Canada Water Southwark 0.8 3.5 0.6 1.7 0.7 7.7 8.8 2.9 Medium 4

C 150 Peckham Rye Southwark 1.0 3.6 0.8 1.1 0.7 7.0 8.4 2.8 Medium - high 4

D 58 Southwark Southwark 1.5 4.0 1.9 1.5 0.8 7.8 8.4 5.3 Medium 4

D 92 Borough Southwark 1.1 3.1 1.9 1.5 0.6 7.6 9.5 4.3 Medium 4

D 94 Kennington Southwark 2.0 3.0 1.2 1.6 0.4 7.5 9.6 3.5 Medium 5

D 186 Denmark Hill Southwark 0.2 4.4 0.9 1.0 0.5 7.0 8.6 3.1 Medium 4

D 351 East Dulwich Southwark 0.0 3.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium 3

D 518 North Dulwich Southwark 0.0 2.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.0 8.6 2.6 Low - medium 2

E 187 Surrey Quays Southwark 0.5 3.0 0.6 2.0 0.7 4.5 9.2 2.8 Medium - high 3

90
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 249 Bermondsey Southwark 0.4 3.0 0.9 1.4 0.7 7.6 8.4 2.5 Medium 4

E 264 Rotherhithe Southwark 0.0 3.0 0.6 1.7 0.8 6.1 8.8 2.7 Medium - high 2

E 282 South Bermondsey Southwark 0.1 2.9 0.6 1.9 0.5 6.6 8.2 1.9 Medium - high 1

E 295 Queens Road, Peckham Southwark 0.2 3.1 0.8 1.7 0.3 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 2

E 335 Nunhead Southwark 0.0 2.9 0.6 1.3 0.9 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium 2

E 458 Sydenham Hill Southwark 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.8 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium 1

E 497 West Dulwich Southwark 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 2
B/B Peckham High Street
E 526 Southwark 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.4 5.7 4.8 3.2 Medium 4
and Bus Station
E 585 B/B Camberwell - Green Southwark 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.3 5.5 5.4 3.0 Medium 5
B/B Old Kent Road -
E 604 Southwark 0.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.6 Low - medium 4
Dunton Road
D 117 Sutton Sutton 1.5 4.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 7.0 8.6 3.6 Medium 4

D 371 Carshalton Sutton 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 7.0 8.6 2.4 Medium 2

D 386 West Sutton Sutton 0.2 3.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 7.0 8.6 2.6 Low - medium 1

D 475 Carshalton Beeches Sutton 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.1 0.6 7.0 8.6 1.9 Medium 2

E 387 Hackbridge Sutton 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium 2

E 431 Cheam Sutton 0.3 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 2

E 435 Sutton Common Sutton 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1

E 462 Wallington Sutton 0.4 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium 3

E 468 Belmont Sutton 0.0 3.7 0.2 0.2 0.7 4.4 6.1 2.2 Medium - high 1

E 513 Worcester Park Sutton 0.4 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.7 5.8 9.4 2.5 Low - medium 3

E 611 Beddington Lane Sutton 0.0 2.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 7.2 9.3 1.9 Low 1

91
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
B 30 Canary Wharf Tower Hamlets 3.7 4.7 1.2 1.9 0.7 7.8 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 5

B 32 Whitechapel Tower Hamlets 2.5 5.3 1.3 2.3 0.7 6.2 8.3 3.2 High 5

C 36 Tower Hill Tower Hamlets 2.9 3.7 2.5 1.7 0.9 7.6 9.5 4.6 Medium 5

C 44 Aldgate East Tower Hamlets 1.5 4.2 2.0 2.0 0.8 6.8 8.2 4.4 Medium 4

D 43 Mile End Tower Hamlets 2.4 4.8 1.0 1.4 1.0 6.0 7.9 2.8 High 5

D 63 Shoreditch High Street Tower Hamlets 1.4 3.8 1.4 2.1 0.6 4.1 4.7 3.5 Medium - high 3

D 71 Bethnal Green (Central) Tower Hamlets 1.5 3.8 1.3 2.1 0.4 7.6 9.1 3.0 Medium 4

D 101 Shadwell Tower Hamlets 0.8 3.5 1.2 2.0 0.6 5.8 7.5 3.0 Medium - high 4

D 112 West India Quay Tower Hamlets 0.8 3.0 1.2 2.1 0.7 7.6 7.8 2.7 Medium - high 1

D 138 Bow Church Tower Hamlets 0.0 3.8 0.8 2.2 0.8 7.2 7.0 2.9 High 2

D 163 Poplar Tower Hamlets 0.5 3.0 1.1 2.0 0.6 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium 2

D 165 Bromley-by-Bow Tower Hamlets 0.0 3.4 0.6 2.2 0.9 6.9 8.6 2.7 Medium - high 3

D 173 Limehouse Tower Hamlets 0.0 3.4 1.0 1.7 0.8 6.0 7.3 2.6 High 4

E 100 Bethnal Green (National Rail) Tower Hamlets 0.5 3.8 1.3 2.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.8 Medium - high 1

E 139 Heron Quays Tower Hamlets 0.9 3.0 1.2 1.7 0.6 6.1 6.3 2.6 High 3

E 146 Westferry Tower Hamlets 0.3 3.0 1.2 2.0 0.8 6.2 7.0 2.7 High 3

E 172 All Saints Tower Hamlets 0.4 3.0 1.0 2.2 0.6 7.3 5.6 2.6 High 1

E 181 Bow Road Tower Hamlets 0.1 3.5 0.9 1.9 0.6 7.6 8.9 3.0 Medium 4

E 184 Stepney Green Tower Hamlets 0.0 3.4 1.2 1.6 0.7 7.0 8.7 3.2 Medium 4

E 185 Blackwall Tower Hamlets 0.2 3.0 0.7 2.2 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.4 Medium - high 1

E 199 Langdon Park Tower Hamlets 0.1 3.0 0.8 2.4 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 2

E 201 South Quay Tower Hamlets 0.5 3.0 1.2 1.4 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.4 Low - medium 2

92
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 214 Wapping Tower Hamlets 0.2 3.0 0.8 1.8 0.9 7.3 6.3 2.6 Medium - high 2

E 223 Devons Road Tower Hamlets 0.0 2.9 0.8 2.2 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 229 Crossharbour Tower Hamlets 0.5 2.9 0.9 1.6 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.9 Medium - high 2

E 232 East India Tower Hamlets 0.1 2.9 0.5 2.2 0.8 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium - high 2

E 268 Mudchute Tower Hamlets 0.2 3.0 0.8 1.5 0.7 6.5 7.0 2.7 Medium - high 1

E 286 Island Gardens Tower Hamlets 0.0 2.9 0.8 1.4 0.9 7.5 9.4 2.7 Low - medium 2

C 66 Walthamstow Central Waltham Forest 2.1 4.4 0.6 1.3 0.8 7.4 9.2 2.6 Medium 4

D 289 Blackhorse Road Waltham Forest 0.0 3.4 0.3 1.6 0.7 6.8 8.9 2.1 Medium 4

E 169 Leyton Waltham Forest 1.3 3.0 0.6 1.7 0.5 6.8 9.1 2.7 Medium 4

E 227 Walthamstow Queens Road Waltham Forest 0.8 3.1 0.6 1.4 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.6 Medium - high 1

E 313 St. James Street Waltham Forest 0.2 2.9 0.5 1.8 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 1

E 333 Leytonstone Waltham Forest 0.7 3.0 0.6 1.0 0.5 6.4 8.4 2.5 Medium - high 4

E 358 Leytonstone High Road Waltham Forest 0.3 2.9 0.6 1.0 0.6 6.6 8.2 2.5 Medium - high 2

E 361 Leyton Midland Road Waltham Forest 0.1 3.0 0.7 1.1 0.7 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium - high 2

E 363 Wood Street Waltham Forest 0.4 2.9 0.5 1.1 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 1

E 421 Chingford Waltham Forest 0.4 2.9 0.2 0.6 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.1 Medium - high 2

E 520 Highams Park Waltham Forest 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 6.6 8.2 2.2 Medium 2

B 24 Clapham Junction Wandsworth 3.5 6.7 0.9 0.6 1.0 7.0 8.2 4.0 Medium 5

D 91 Balham Wandsworth 1.1 4.7 0.8 0.4 1.3 7.3 9.4 3.0 Medium 4

D 274 Putney Wandsworth 1.2 3.0 0.7 0.3 0.9 7.0 8.6 2.9 Medium 4

D 297 Tooting Broadway Wandsworth 1.3 2.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 7.4 9.2 3.0 Low - medium 4

D 303 Earlsfield Wandsworth 0.0 3.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 7.0 8.6 2.7 Medium 4

93
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
D 326 Wandsworth Town Wandsworth 0.5 3.1 0.7 0.5 1.0 7.0 8.6 2.5 Medium 3

D 465 Tooting Bec Wandsworth 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 6.8 8.9 3.0 Low - medium 4

E 83 Battersea Park Wandsworth 1.1 4.3 0.6 1.6 1.0 6.6 8.2 2.4 High 3

E 131 Queenstown Road Wandsworth 0.8 3.7 0.6 1.6 0.8 6.6 8.2 3.0 Medium - high 2

E 411 East Putney Wandsworth 0.4 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 7.0 8.9 3.0 Low - medium 4

E 428 Clapham South Wandsworth 0.2 2.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 6.9 9.2 2.6 Low - medium 4

E 447 Wandsworth Common Wandsworth 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.3 1.0 6.6 8.2 3.2 Low - medium 2

E 496 Southfields Wandsworth 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.3 0.6 6.6 8.8 2.4 Low - medium 4
B/B Wandsworth
E 614 Wandsworth 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 5.5 5.7 2.6 Medium 4
Town Centre
A 7 Victoria Westminster 5.3 7.1 2.0 1.5 1.0 7.0 7.8 4.9 Medium 6

B 5 Paddington Westminster 6.4 7.8 1.2 1.7 1.4 6.8 7.5 4.4 Medium 5

B 10 Charing Cross Westminster 3.3 6.1 4.1 1.1 1.2 7.1 7.7 5.9 Medium 5

B 12 Tottenham Court Road Westminster 3.9 5.2 3.5 1.7 1.0 6.7 7.4 5.7 Medium 5

B 26 Bond Street Westminster 4.6 5.2 1.8 0.4 0.6 7.5 8.7 5.1 Medium 5

B 29 Marylebone Westminster 3.0 5.8 1.7 1.1 0.8 7.5 9.2 4.8 Medium 5

C 14 Oxford Circus Westminster 5.8 4.3 2.6 0.8 0.5 7.1 8.8 5.5 Medium 6

C 17 Green Park Westminster 6.1 4.2 2.4 0.5 0.7 7.2 8.4 4.5 Low 5

C 18 Baker Street Westminster 4.7 5.9 2.0 0.5 0.7 7.1 7.9 4.3 Medium 5

C 19 Embankment Westminster 2.3 5.5 3.4 1.4 1.0 7.1 8.7 5.6 Medium 5

C 22 Piccadilly Circus Westminster 3.5 3.9 3.9 1.1 0.8 7.3 8.7 5.4 Medium 5

C 34 Leicester Square Westminster 1.7 3.9 3.8 1.3 1.0 7.2 9.1 5.6 Medium 5

94
Appendix 1 – Full interchange list by borough

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy Borough/
Cat. rank Location authority IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
C 40 Westminster Westminster 1.2 4.2 3.4 1.3 1.0 7.7 8.8 4.4 Medium 5

C 65 Edgware Road (H&C line) Westminster 1.6 4.2 1.4 1.3 0.7 6.7 7.3 4.6 Medium - high 4

C 76 Hyde Park Corner Westminster 2.2 4.0 1.2 0.4 1.0 7.3 8.9 4.3 Medium 4

C 104 Edgware Road (Bakerloo) Westminster 1.5 3.2 1.4 1.2 0.7 7.1 8.6 4.6 Medium 4

C 134 Marble Arch Westminster 1.5 4.1 1.1 0.4 0.5 6.8 8.9 4.6 Medium 4

D 48 Covent Garden Westminster 1.4 3.4 3.1 1.5 0.9 7.5 9.0 5.6 Medium 5

D 54 St. James’s Park Westminster 2.1 3.5 2.4 1.1 0.9 7.3 8.6 3.9 Medium 4

D 69 Temple Westminster 1.3 3.5 1.9 1.5 0.8 7.3 8.8 5.8 Medium 4

D 73 Great Portland Street Westminster 1.7 4.1 1.6 0.8 0.7 7.3 7.3 4.4 Medium 4

D 81 Royal Oak Westminster 1.7 3.6 1.4 1.4 0.5 6.5 8.5 3.4 Medium - high 3

D 105 Bayswater Westminster 1.7 3.6 1.1 0.7 0.8 7.5 8.6 3.6 Medium 4

D 125 Pimlico Westminster 1.1 3.0 1.8 1.0 0.8 7.0 9.4 3.6 Medium 4

D 149 Queensway Westminster 1.8 3.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 7.4 9.3 3.6 Medium 4

D 154 Regent’s Park Westminster 1.4 3.1 1.6 0.6 0.4 7.5 9.0 4.5 Low - medium 4

D 183 Lancaster Gate Westminster 1.3 3.1 0.9 0.9 0.7 7.3 9.0 3.5 Low - medium 4

D 300 St. John’s Wood Westminster 0.9 3.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 7.5 8.8 2.9 Low - medium 4

E 158 Warwick Avenue Westminster 0.8 3.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 7.0 8.1 3.2 Medium 4

E 164 Westbourne Park Westminster 0.5 3.6 1.3 1.3 0.6 6.1 8.5 2.7 Medium - high 3

E 394 Maida Vale Westminster 0.0 3.0 1.1 0.8 0.4 7.5 8.9 3.1 Low - medium 3

95
Appendix 2

Framework assessment
criteria details

96
Appendix 2 – Assessment criteria details

Policy criteria
Link to
London
Interchange Link to MTS Plan Link to EDS The contribution of
criteria proposals policies proposals interchange Measure ‘Place’ or ‘network’ role
Supporting 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1.1, 2.7, 1A, 4F, 5A, 5B, Crowding is a symptom Assessment of Both – this measure considers the level
sustainable 11, 15, 16, 2.10, 5G of the imbalance between interchange crowding of crowding at the worst part of the
growth 17, 19, 22, 2.11, capacity and demand, and interchange. This is therefore applicable
46, 60, 84 2.15, 4.1, can be a hindrance both for people using the interchange
4.7, 6.1, to growth. as an origin/destination, and for those
6.3, 6.4 making transport connections.
A well designed
interchange environment Importance with regards centres Place – this measure is focused on
IP1
can help ensure the (international, metropolitan, access to a centre. It attempts to
interchange is not a major and district) capture its wider significance as well as
capacity constraint. its physical proximity to the centre.
Capacity is particularly Importance with regards the Place – this measure looks at proximity
needed around important Central Activities Zone to the Central Activities Zone and its
centres and in central primary focus is one of location.
London generally.
Improving 4, 6, 14, 19, 2.3, 2.8,   Provides interchange Assessment of interchange Network – this considers the role within
transport 23, 26, 27, 4.11, 6.1, opportunities across transport geography the wider transport network.
connectivity 28, 30, 36, 6.4 modes, particularly at
46, 49 strategic interchanges, to
potentially relieve Assessment of interchange Network – this considers the number of
IP2 crowded links. complexity route options available to an individual
at an interchange.
Improved connections
between modes/lines
to reduce travel times,
specifically at interchanges.

97
Policy criteria
Link to
London
Interchange Link to MTS Plan Link to EDS The contribution of
criteria proposals policies proposals interchange Measure ‘Place’ or ‘network’ role
Promoting 30, 49 2.7, 2.16, 1A, 2F, 4F, 5D Improves access to jobs Population surrounding interchange Place – this is focused on the
businesses 2.17, 4.1, through better interchange surrounding workforce, in particular
4.5, 6.1, opportunities. the importance of the location from an
6.4 employee perspective.
Ensures more efficient
movement of people Employment surrounding Place – this is focused on the
and goods particularly in interchange surrounding businesses, looking at the
IP3
tourist/business locations. importance of the location from an
employer/business perspective.
Provides a well designed
interchange environment to Importance with regards to Place – this is primarily focused on an
assist tourist travel. tourist attractors interchange as a destination and reflects
the significant role tourism plays in the
London economy.
Supporting 15, 84 2.3, 2.7, 2F, 4A, 5D, 5E, Enhanced connectivity to Index of Multiple Deprivation Place – considers the attributes of the
regeneration 2.13, 2.14 5F reduce severance. Targeted surrounding interchange area surrounding an interchange.
improvements in deprived/
Importance with regards to Place – this measure looks at proximity
regeneration areas to
supporting opportunity areas to opportunity areas and its primary
IP4 support anticipated growth.
focus is one of location.
Importance with regards to Place – this measure looks at proximity
supporting intensification areas to intensification areas and its primary
focus is one of location.
Facilitating 51, 53, 56, 2.7, 2.8, 2H Removal of physical Access to the London Cycle Network – the aim is to ensure
active travel 57, 59, 82, 2.15, 6.9, barriers for pedestrians and Network/Barclays Cycle passengers at an interchange can cycle a
115 6.10 cyclists, through better Superhighways journey leg.
street design, to improve
Access to the Strategic Network – the aim is to ensure
access to the cycling
IP5 Walking Network passengers at an interchange can walk a
network/open spaces.
journey leg.
Cycling facilities and
wayfinding at interchanges
to encourage cycling for
journey legs.

98
Quality criteria
Link to
London
Interchange Link to MTS Plan Link to EDS The contribution of
criteria proposals policies proposals interchange Measure ‘Place’ or ‘network’ role
Improving 13, 17, 18, 2.7, 2.15, 2G Provision of quality Quality of interchange Place – condition of the interchange
journey 21, 41, 42, 6.1, 7.5 interchange facilities. environment
experience 43, 45, 59,
Maintains the condition of Signage and wayfinding Network – signage is primarily
60, 82, 83,
interchange facilities. concerned with helping passengers find
114
connections and the overall ease of
IP6 Ensures a quality
the journey.
interchange environment,
clear wayfinding and better General interchange facilities Place – facilities at interchange
passenger information.
General interchange facilities Place – facilities at interchange
(asset assessment)
Improving 13, 42, 43, 2.8 2J Ensures the secure Staffing and CCTV provision Place – security at interchange
safety and 59, 73, 77, and safe nature of an
security 78, 80 interchange through Lighting and personal security Place – security at interchange
adequate lighting, CCTV
and other security
provisions. CCTV provision Place – security at interchange
IP7 (asset assessment)
Provides clear safety
measures, and in particular Lighting adequacy Place – security at interchange
a visible security presence, (asset assessment)
to improve passenger
perceptions of safety
and security.

99
Quality criteria
Link to
London
Interchange Link to MTS Plan Link to EDS The contribution of
criteria proposals policies proposals interchange Measure ‘Place’ or ‘network’ role
Improving 18, 19, 21, 3.1, 7.2   Ensures interchanges can Ease of interchange access Both – accessibility, in particular
accessibility 40, 45, 82 be used by everyone, (asset assessment) step-free access, is considered when
enabling access for entering and exiting the interchange,
disabled passengers as and for connecting between different
well as providing routes and modes.
accessible facilities.
Public Transport Accessibility Place – considers the attributes of the
IP8 Removes physical barriers Level (PTAL) area surrounding an interchange.
around the interchange to Access to Opportunities and Both – while concerned with what is
provide improved access to Services (ATOS) scores on available at the interchange, there is
surrounding services. access to schools, GP surgeries, also the potential to access services
supermarkets and open spaces. via bus or other modes, so therefore it
considers the interchange in the context
of a wider journey.

100
Appendix 3
Bus and coach interchanges
Bus interchange
In recent years there has been continued
growth in bus use across London, with more
than two billion journeys in 2010/111
Central London locations such as Oxford
Circus, Victoria and Marble Arch all have high
volumes of bus passengers, but Elephant &
Castle has by far the greatest. Other locations
on the edge of central London such as
Brixton, Shepherd’s Bush and Angel Islington,
and in Outer London, for instance Woolwich
and Romford, also have high volumes.
Around 30 per cent of bus trips involve an
interchange with another bus, and the pattern
of interchange locations is more dispersed
than for rail.
Most of these are adjacent to rail or Tube
stations, for example Brixton, Lewisham and
Woolwich. There is often significant ‘bus to
Underground’ or ‘bus to rail’ interchange,
with buses serving areas without access
to the rail or Tube networks both in Outer
London and the centre.
1 Travel In London Report 4
However, there are also a large number of
locations where there is no adjacent rail or
Tube station, just high volumes of passengers
changing from bus to bus on-street.
Figs A3.1 and A3.2 show the 15 busiest ‘bus
to bus’ interchange locations without a rail
or Underground station. These have been
included in the main interchange plan analysis.
Coach interchange
There are also coach routes that operate
across London providing both commuter and
visitor services.
A large number of passengers use major
coach stations such as Victoria and
Heathrow. Interchange also occurs at smaller
dedicated facilities such as Golders Green
and at on-street locations, for instance Baker
Street, where coach services intersect with
Underground or National Rail routes.
Fig A3.3 shows the main coach corridors.
These provide a valuable local and national
network that does not always receive
adequate consideration when interchange
facilities are being designed.
101
Fig A3.1 – ‘Bus to bus’ interchange analysis results

Overall Policy criteria Quality criteria

policy
Cat. rank Location Borough IP1 IP2 1P3 IP4 IP5 IP6 IP7 IP8 Quality gap Size band
E 344 Holloway Nags Head Islington 0.0 2.7 1.0 1.6 0.4 4.8 6.5 3.2 Medium - high 4
Peckham High St and
E 526 Southwark 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.4 5.7 4.8 3.2 Medium 4
bus station
E 563 East Ham - Town Hall Newham 0.6 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.4 5.7 4.6 3.1 Medium 4

D 578 Brent Cross shopping centre Barnet 0.0 1.7 0.3 1.1 0.7 6.6 5.0 2.4 Medium 4

E 585 Camberwell - Green Southwark 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.3 5.5 5.4 3.0 Medium 5

E 595 Southall Broadway Ealing 0.6 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.4 4.6 3.1 2.7 Medium 4
Old Kent Road - Dunton
E 604 Southwark 0.2 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.6 Low - medium 4
Road
E 614 Wandsworth Town Centre Wandsworth 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 5.5 5.7 2.6 Medium 4

E 616 Acton Town Centre Ealing 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.4 5.0 4.9 2.6 Medium 4

E 619 Romford Market Havering 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 4.4 4.4 2.5 Medium 4

E 620 Eltham High Street Greenwich 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.6 5.4 4.0 2.3 Medium 3

E 621 Greenford Broadway Ealing 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 5.0 4.6 2.4 Medium 4

E 622 Muswell Hill Haringey 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 5.4 4.7 2.4 Medium 4

E 623 North Finchley Barnet 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.4 5.3 4.5 2.4 Medium 4

E 624 Bexleyheath - Marketplace Bexley 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.6 8.2 2.3 Medium 4

102
Fig A3.2 – 15 busiest ‘bus to bus’ interchange locations remote from rail or Underground stations

103
Fig A3.3 – Coach corridors

104
Appendix 4
Strategic interchanges
Strategic interchanges will help to relieve passenger dispersal pressures at central London rail termini
through two primary means:
1) Enable interchange to orbital public
transport services to avoid the need
to enter central London
Origin
Destination
Rail termini Strategic interchange
Enhanced orbital trip opportunity
Context
The MTS introduces the concept of strategic
interchanges. These are primarily radial
to orbital rail interchanges that have the
potential to reduce travel times and relieve
crowding at central London mainline termini
by intercepting passengers before they
get there. They can also improve orbital
connectivity and can reduce crowding at
some central London stations.
2) Enable interchange between National Rail and
Underground/bus services at a point prior to
the rail termini, thereby reducing pressure at
overcrowded rail termini interchanges
Origin
Destination
National Rail Underground/bus
Central area
The analysis in this framework is being used
to inform the development of key priorities
such as these.
Interchange Framework category IP2
specifically measures potential for improved
connectivity at an interchange. When looking
at this alone, interchanges such as Clapham
Junction, Stratford, East and West Croydon,
Wimbledon and Willesden Junction are all
ranked highest.
105
TfL’s sub-regional transport plans build
on this analysis and look more closely at
potential new connections and links to major
schemes, for instance HS2.
Opportunities to deliver strategic interchange
benefits include:
Proposal 46
The Mayor, through TfL, and working with
Network Rail, the train operating companies,
London boroughs and other stakeholders,
will prioritise improvements to strategic
interchanges, that will:

• The London Overground network, to be a) Provide opportunities for orbital public

complete by 2012, which offers new orbital
connectivity and capacity in Inner London
• The DLR, which provides opportunities for
orbital travel in east London
• A Crossrail/HS2 interchange at Old
Oak Common, which would ease
pressure on Euston and the central
London Tube network
transport services
b) Provide interchange opportunities before
arriving in central London, in order to
reduce interchange capacity pressure at
London’s rail termini
c) Provide opportunities to accommodate
population and employment growth,
with developer contributions towards
the interchange improvements sought in
appropriate circumstances

Strategic interchanges
by region 18
22
North
South
14 East
30
West
16
Central

106