Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings

Strategic Outline Business Case

Date: November 2015 Version: Final

2

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 4

2. The approach to the business case ................................................................. 19

3. The Strategic Case ...................................................................................... 23

4. The Economic Case ..................................................................................... 95

5. The Financial Case ..................................................................................... 136

6. The Commercial Case ................................................................................. 141

7. The Management Case ................................................................................ 144

8. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 151

3

1. Executive Summary

1.1. The proposed scheme and purpose of this document

1.1.1. The East of Silvertown project is proposed to be two fixed link highway crossings in east London – one at Gallions Reach, connecting Thamesmead and Beckton, and the other linking Belvedere and Rainham.

1.1.2. The Gallions Reach crossing would link the A2016 Western Way in Thamesmead with the A1020 Royal Docks Road in the north, which in turn links to the A13 and A406 North Circular Road. The Belvedere crossing would link the A2016 Bronze Age Way in Belvedere with the A13 Marsh Way junction in Rainham.

Figure 1-1 Proposed river crossings to the East of Silvertown and Opportunity Areas

1.1.3. These crossings are key to unlocking the full potential of east London; supporting

London’s population growth and helping drive its economy by addressing the severance caused by the Thames.

1.1.4. This project sits within a wider series of new river crossings for London which are intended to reduce the barrier effect of the Thames. These crossings consist of public transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs, facilitate business activity, support housing development, enhance the resilience of the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.

1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance, using a five case model which considers whether, and how, the scheme:

• is supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives: the ‘strategic case’;

• demonstrates value for money: the ‘economic case’; • is commercially viable: the ‘commercial case’; • is financially affordable: the ‘financial case’; and • is achievable: the ‘management case’.

East of Silvertown crossings

4

1.1.6. The East of Silvertown project is not yet at a stage where a preferred option has been identified and further detailed feasibility work and informal and formal consultation is required before a preferred option is put forward. The shortlisted options that could form part of a preferred option at a later date are presented in this SOBC.

1.1.7. All the options are assumed to provide two lanes in each direction – one for general traffic and one for public transport. Bus services would use the crossings and link into the existing local bus networks. Other public transport connections are under consideration including a new branch of the DLR from Gallions Reach station across to the southern side of the Thames.

1.1.8. TfL would incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities into any new crossing as part of the East of Silvertown project, provided they can be accommodated in a manner that guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost.

1.2. Strategic Case

London’s growth is vital to help tackle the productivity challenge and drive a strong UK economy

1.2.1. London is a rapidly growing city with a population of 8.6 million people which is expected to grow to over 10 million by 2036, and to reach 11.3 million by 2050. London has a highly productive, strong economy and over the next 20 years, the number of jobs in London is also projected to grow by 700,000 to 6.3 million. This growth is shown in Figure 1-2 below.

Figure 1-2 Historic trends and projected growth in London’s employment and population to 2036

1.2.2. The expansion of London’s high value internationally competitive sectors located in

its centre – which drive UK productivity – depends on further growth in other sectors across the city, including a number of specialist clusters. These provide a wide array of vital business functions and service the growing population that economic growth generates.

1.2.3. Delivering this projected growth in London would play a crucial role in supporting the economic success of the UK as a whole. However there are considerable challenges and London’s continued success cannot be taken for granted.

5

1.2.4. As set out in the Budget and the Fixing the Foundations report, a central task for this Government is to create the right conditions for a much more productive national economy. We must enable London to maximise its contribution to this – and within this, the role that east London plays.

East London has significant potential to contribute further to the economic performance of London and the UK

1.2.5. While London is growing as a whole, it is expanding east from the centre at an especially rapid rate. This eastwards shift is driven by development opportunities, supportive planning, momentum and a favourable investment climate. The region is forecast to generate nearly 300,000 more jobs by 2036.

1.2.6. Over the last 15 years regeneration has transformed much of the former Docklands, particularly in inner east London boroughs. This has been accompanied by a diversification of the economic base and a substantial increase in employment. Canary Wharf is now well established as an integral part of the productive core of London and there are newer economic and employment hubs emerging within the region like Stratford and Royal Docks as well as clusters of specialist activities like O2 and Excel.

1.2.7. East London also forms part of the Thames Gateway corridor, which extends eastwards beyond London’s boundaries into Essex and Kent, along the Thames Estuary. The Thames Gateway corridor represents a significant opportunity for growth within London and the South East. Sectors of the Thames Gateway economy that make up the majority of employment are business and other services, construction, transport and distribution and ‘non-marketed’ services.

1.2.8. There are large areas of land on both sides of the River Thames classified as Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). East London contains nearly 40% of London’s industrial land, and these industrial areas play an important role in servicing businesses based in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and central parts of London.

1.2.9. There is a significant transport and logistics presence within the Gateway, including the recently opened London Gateway container port, and distribution centres and warehousing. Some 30% of London’s warehousing space is in the east London sub-region.

1.2.10. These logistics and distribution centres play a vital and increasingly important role in supplying consumer and business demand across London as a whole, including within central London, where land supply is scarce and there is a trend towards denser levels of development.

1.2.11. East London is particularly suitable for intensification of existing employment land and new development as it has significant levels of vacant or under-used land. The areas designated as SIL could become even more important with wider changes in land use in other parts of London from industrial to residential/mixed use.

6

East London will also need to play a significant role in solving London’s housing crisis which otherwise threatens to constrain economic growth

1.2.12. Over a prolonged period of time, the rate of delivery of new housing supply in London has not kept up with demand. As set out in the London Plan, 49,000 new homes need to be built each year. Indeed, to make up the existing backlog up to 62,000 homes are needed each year to 2025. However, over the last five years, an average of only 25,000 new dwellings has been delivered.

1.2.13. As a result, London has a chronic housing shortage, resulting in greater crowding within properties, and increases in housing costs. The median house price to average annual earnings multiple for London has increased from six times annual average earnings in 2001 to over ten times average earnings in 2014. If this issue is not addressed it is likely to constrain London’s economic growth, with major impacts for the UK as a whole. Providing sufficient housing to meet current and future demand is therefore a key priority of central Government, the Mayor, and London boroughs.

1.2.14. Opportunity Areas (OAs) are the capital’s main reservoir of brownfield land. The London Plan highlights the potential of the east London sub-region to deliver a substantial proportion of the housing growth forecast for the Capital, with 14 designated OAs (shown on Figure 1-3).

Figure 1-3 Location of the 14 Opportunity Areas in east London*

*Potential to accommodate development based on Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) targets

1.2.15. There are also three key Housing Zones in outer east London (Abbey Wood, Plumstead and Thamesmead (RB Greenwich); Abbey Wood and Thamesmead (LB Bexley) and Rainham and Beam Park (LB Havering)).

1.2.16. Overall, the sub-region is expected to accommodate nearly a third of London’s projected population growth.

7

This planned growth will build on change already underway, helping to tackle areas of deprivation and address wider policy goals

1.2.17. As Figure 1-4 shows, the parts of east London that are within the Thames Gateway corridor are some of the most deprived areas of the UK. By comparison with the rest of the wider South East, more people in the Thames Gateway corridor are unemployed and they have fewer qualifications and skills than the London average.

1.2.18. Regeneration and redevelopment can help to address these issues. As part of a wider approach, investment in transport infrastructure can provide positive regeneration benefits in the form of job creation, and inward investment.

Figure 1-4 Areas of deprivation in London and locations of new river crossings

The current lack of cross-river connectivity and capacity, and limited integration into existing transport networks prevents east London from fulfilling its strategic potential

1.2.19. It is the transport of people, goods and services that makes cities work. Conversely, the lack of key connections can significantly inhibit their productivity and success.

1.2.20. As the Thames flows eastwards past the Tower of London, the river widens and deepens – the distance from bank to bank at Woolwich is five times the distance at Putney, making the construction of river crossings further east more challenging. With these conditions, historically the eastern Thames has been the centre of London’s docks and shipping, and wharves and industrial uses lining the banks of the river, with residential communities developing behind these, away from the banks.

1.2.21. As a consequence of these geographical and historical conditions, there are far fewer crossings in east than west London – with only three road vehicle crossings in the

8

23km between Tower Bridge and the M25 – and no crossings in London east of Woolwich (either highway or public transport), which leaves a gap of some 14km before the next crossing at Dartford. Figure 1-5 below highlights the large disparity in cross-river highway connections between east London and the rest of the city.

Figure 1-5 Road river crossings in west and east London

1.2.22. This lack of cross-river connectivity in east London results in journeys that are longer

and more indirect; limits people’s job, education and leisure opportunities and reduces business to business activities.

1.2.23. There has been major investment in cross-river rail links in inner east London including the creation and expansion of London Overground, improvements to Tube and DLR frequencies and further enhancement soon with Crossrail. In contrast, similar levels of investment have not been made in respect of the cross-river road network in any part of east London nor in the rail network in outer east London.

1.2.24. Furthermore, as a consequence of the lack of cross-river road connectivity, there is only a single bus route crossing the river east of Tower Bridge – the 108 between Stratford and Lewisham via the Blackwall Tunnel. In contrast, 47 bus routes cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge.

1.2.25. Cross-river travel times between areas such as Thamesmead and Beckton are long despite the short ‘as the crow flies’ distance between them. This means that cross-river trips are constrained, along with the opportunities they lead to. With its much better provision of river crossings west London has 70% more total cross-river trips compared to east London.

1.2.26. A particular consequence of this is that east London residents living south of the river cannot easily access the job opportunities that exist north of the river. The Figure below sets out very clearly the barrier effect of the Thames on job opportunities for those living south of the river. TfL analysis shows that people in Beckton, for

9

example, have access to 10 times more jobs by car than those living on the opposite bank of the river in Thamesmead.

Figure 1-6 Number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes – 20111

1.2.27. With only three road vehicle crossings in London east of Tower Bridge (the

Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry), traffic is heavily concentrated at these places. Further exacerbating this is that the existing crossings suffer from capacity restrictions leading to widespread delays and resilience issues. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel would overcome the particular congestion and resilience issues associated with the Blackwall Tunnel but cannot alone deal with the issues related to a lack of cross-river connectivity in east London.

1.2.28. It is clear that existing river crossings in east London do not cater adequately for current cross-river movement. When the scale and pattern of London’s future growth is taken into account, the need for change becomes even stronger. As set out above, east London is expected to see a significant increase in population over the next 20 years, with over one third of all London’s growth to be accommodated in the sub-region.

1.2.29. In percentage terms, the mode share of trips by car in east London is set to continue to decrease, however as the total population within the sub-region grows, the absolute number of vehicle trips within the sub-region is forecast to increase.

1 37 minutes is the average driving time to work in the area

10

1.2.30. This is due to the increase in population, and with it, the increase in freight activity over the medium to long term, to serve the increasing population. This is particularly important in east London to support the growing population but also as a result of its strategic role as an international gateway. And with more jobs forecast to be created within areas on the north side of the river, such as within the Royal Docks, there will be increased cross-river travel demand (both road and public transport) from those living on the south side.

The case for change is clear. Work is continuing to develop the specific options for the East of Silvertown project in order to optimise the benefits, ensure it is deliverable and maximises value for money

1.2.31. TfL is undertaking a detailed option assessment to determine the scheme that best meets the needs identified. Assessments of existing and future land uses has identified two locations that would best meet the objectives and integrate with the existing transport networks in the area; these are at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham (referred to as Belvedere).

1.2.32. Crossings at these locations would help to ensure that the significant growth planned in the area can be supported by, for example, linking OAs on either side of the river as well as helping to improve network resilience.

1.2.33. There are limited alternative viable locations, with large parts of the riverside in east London having constraints on one side or both, which would make the construction of a new river crossing unacceptable in terms of property or environmental impacts.

1.2.34. To date, a broad range of options for the crossings at these locations have been considered for their strategic fit and likely costs, benefits and impact. Sifting processes to reduce a long list down has been undertaken and the work is presented in Option Assessment Report (Long List) and Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List).

1.2.35. These reports have considered whether bridges or tunnels would be most appropriate and what type of bridge or tunnel would be possible. They have also considered what public transport facilities could be provided with the crossings as well as whether it would be feasible to incorporate walking and cycling facilities.

1.2.36. In summary, this assessment process has resulted in a short list of options that are being presented in this SOBC. These options generally vary slightly in terms of their transport benefits and impacts but overall, meet the scheme objectives, while differing in their geographical scope and contribution to new development. Given the possibility of bridges or tunnels being built at either location, there is combination of options and Table 1-1sets these out.

11

Table 1-1 East of Silvertown river crossing options

Highway crossing Public transport2 Walk and cycle facilities

Gallions Reach bridge & Belvedere bridge

Bus only or

Bus + Short DLR

or Bus + Long DLR

or Bus + Tram

Yes

Gallions Reach tunnel & Belvedere bridge

Bus only or

Bus + Short DLR

or Bus + Long DLR

or Bus + Tram

To be determined at Gallions Reach

Yes at Belvedere

Gallions Reach bridge & Belvedere tunnel

Bus only or

Bus + Short DLR

or Bus + Long DLR

or Bus + Tram

Yes at Gallions Reach

To be determined at Belvedere

Gallions Reach tunnel & Belvedere tunnel

Bus only or

Bus + Short DLR

or Bus + Long DLR

or Bus + Tram

To be determined

New cross-river connections in east London would deliver significant benefits

1.2.37. These options would all transform highway connectivity between east and southeast London and deliver a step-change in outer-east London cross-river public transport provision. They would all improve local firms’ access to markets and increase the size of retail and leisure catchments.

1.2.38. In terms of access to jobs, there would be a strong positive impact across the area, with the largest increase for residents in the Borough of Bexley and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Residents of Thamesmead would see a 63% increase in the number of jobs accessible to them within in a 75 minute drive (generalised journey time3).

1.2.39. The crossings would also all deliver wider improvements in the resilience and reliability of the road network - crucial for many road based sectors.

1.2.40. New river crossings would deliver significant improvements to the cross-river public transport network, providing the opportunity to link areas on either side of the river for the first time, and depending on the option chosen, could also provide for extensions to fixed rail links (e.g., the DLR), which could deliver additional benefits.

2 As the lead times for making bus service changes would be around two years allowing for recent developments and travel patterns to be taken into account yet enough time to consult and procure the service change. Therefore, plans for the bus network at this time are indicative and will be subject to further assessment, consultation and amendment. 3 Generalised journey time includes the in-vehicle journey time, walk time to access stops or stations, interchanges and crowding levels

12

1.2.41. For example, a DLR extension to Thamesmead as part of the East of Silvertown project (Short DLR) would mean that, with one interchange, people in Thamesmead would have access to seven different TfL rail lines, as shown in Figure 1-7.

Figure 1-7 TfL rail and Underground network accessible from Thamesmead with one interchange if DLR forms part of the East of Silvertown project

1.2.42. As well as significant transport benefits, the options would all also unlock housing

and bring forward development that would otherwise not happen - not only because of the transformed connectivity the crossings would bring about but also by giving confidence to inward investors that the public sector is prepared to invest in the area for the long term.

1.2.43. For example, it is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity delivered by the crossings could alone deliver at least 5,000 new homes and 3,000 new jobs (bus only option).

1.2.44. New transport connections would help to widen the appeal of new development, as potential residents would be able to access a wider range of jobs, education, retail, leisure and recreational opportunities. This would change market expectations – increasing values, hence encouraging further development. Crucially, this could help overcome viability constraints without raising average land values in the area to the extent that family and affordable housing could be crowded out.

13

New river crossings would also deliver major benefits to businesses and the economy

1.2.45. Investment in east London’s cross-river transport networks that would enhance connectivity and deliver additional capacity, would help to enable greater economic growth in the following ways:

• providing companies with access to a larger and higher quality workforce;

• improving access to customers and suppliers and helping supply-chains to work more cohesively and efficiently;

• cutting journey times and providing more direct routes, reducing the costs of doing business, (with crossing options delivering up to £5bn in journey time savings);

• supporting business investment decisions, with potential expansion as a result of reduced journey times or reduced crowding levels/ congestion, improved network resilience and an overall improvement in the perception of east London as a whole;

• expanding retail catchment areas for key centres.

1.2.46. A survey of businesses in the local area4 found that 64% of firms regard improvements to cross-river journeys as important to the successful operation of their business and almost half of companies would expect to increase recruitment with improved river crossings.

1.2.47. Evidence shows that improved connectivity from river crossings can impact significantly on employment growth, with the authorities in close proximity to the Dartford Crossing seeing growth rates of 20% above those of the wider sub-region during the past 20 years.

1.2.48. With its large areas of SIL, the east London sub-region will play an important role in the servicing and delivery industries. Freight and servicing trips in the sub-region are mostly undertaken by road and the sector keenly feels the challenges, including severance and journey time unreliability, as a result of the scarcity of crossings in east London.

1.2.49. Improved cross-river connectivity would also help tackle key market and economic inefficiencies. Many occupiers perceive the two areas north and south of the river as two distinct sub-markets due to the separation caused by the river. Without better connections that help join up the industrial locations, this distinction will continue.

1.2.50. Cross-river highway connections are not only important for private and commercial traffic but also for bus services. Buses are a key enabler of access to labour markets and are an affordable means of transport, playing a key role particularly for lower paid workers.

4 Business Survey, WSP, May 2014

14

Charging is an integral element of any package and would help ensure benefits are realised in the most effective way

1.2.51. It is proposed that TfL would charge for the use of the East of Silvertown crossings. This is to help manage demand for the crossings and also to help pay for the new infrastructure.

1.2.52. While the provision of additional connectivity is fundamental, the absence of charging to manage demand would erode or time-limit the benefits. Charging enables the objectives of the scheme to be met while keeping demand within management limits.

1.2.53. User charging revenue is likely to be a key component of the funding arrangements for the East of Silvertown project. However, further analysis is required before any decisions can be made about the precise level of the charge, and therefore the exact funding arrangements.

1.2.54. Road user charging has the potential to deliver wider benefits in terms of helping reduce congestion – but it is not an alternative to the river crossings and would not address the connectivity issues that the crossings are aiming to overcome. While it may support greater resilience of the network and reduce pressures at other crossings charging does not deliver the improved connectivity that is fundamental to the success of east London.

1.3. Economic Case

The analysis demonstrates that new river crossings to the East of Silvertown can deliver value for money

1.3.1. The project would deliver significant transport user benefits for east London. Of the four proposed short list public transport options presented in this SOBC, Option A i.e. bus only has the lowest cost and shows very high potential transport benefits of £2.8bn to £3.5bn (Net Present Value (NPV), in 2010 prices). This results in a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.9 to 4.7.

1.3.2. The remaining options include rail-based public transport intended to serve development areas that are currently characterised by low patronage and therefore the assessment of transport user benefits is only a partial reflection of the overall scheme impacts.

In addition to the strong transport user benefits, the scheme would also deliver significant positive wider economic impacts

1.3.3. The proposed river crossings are expected to have significant impacts on productivity and the spatial distribution of development impacts. Therefore a full assessment of the Wider Economic Impacts has also been calculated in terms of agglomeration, output change in imperfectly competitive markets and tax revenues arising from labour market impacts.

1.3.4. Considering both the transport user benefits and Wider Economic impacts, over the 60-year appraisal period, the project is estimated to result in an overall net benefit between £2.8bn and £5.7bn (NPV, in 2010 prices). The BCR for the four options tested falls into a wide range between 1.9 and 7.1.

15

Table 1-2 Economic Case overview – transport user benefits and wider economic impacts

Bus only Bus + Short DLR

Bus + Long DLR

Bus + Tram

WebTAG TEE only

NPV (£m) 2,780 to 3,500

2,310 to 3,010 360 to 1,490

1,360 to 2,010

BCR

2.9 to 4.7 2.3 to 3.4 1.1 to 1.7 1.5 to 2.0

WebTAG TEE + wider impacts

NPV (£m) 5,000 to 5,720

4,560 to 5,260

2,760 to 3,890

3,830 to 44,80

BCR 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2

The analysis demonstrates that new river crossings East of Silvertown can support regeneration in east and southeast London

1.3.5. Options A and B deliver significant transport user benefits to existing communities, however seen from a development and regeneration perspective, Options C and D would support the highest growth in housing and jobs. As a result these options are forecast to have the largest economic impacts with a net contribution to London’s economy of over £7.5bn.

Table 1-3 Economic Case overview – regeneration impacts

Bus only Bus + Short DLR

Bus + Long DLR

Bus + Tram

Net additional homes (000s) 5 18 26 26

Net additional jobs (000s) 3 5 5 5

Regeneration impact (housing productive and indirect effects, and Gross Value Added job effects), present value (£m)5

2,210 6,340 8,710 7,730

1.4. Financial Case

1.4.1. The Financial Case sets out the project cost, the funding available to deliver the scheme and the proposed / potential financing arrangements. The financial case is being developed further but we can reasonably expect a contribution from users through road user charges and passenger fares and the project should be financially affordable.

5 Housing effects are discounted over a 30-year appraisal period, and GVA job effects are discounted over 10 years in line with additionality guidance assumptions

16

1.4.2. Indicative initial cost estimates (capital and operational) have been produced for the options in this SOBC, which carry a total cost of around £1bn - £3bn (2010 prices including optimism bias). However, given the stage of the project, it is not possible to present an Estimated Final Cost. Detailed cost estimates would follow once the options have been shortlisted further and more detailed modelling and engineering work has been undertaken.

1.4.3. While it is not possible to make any decisions on the preferred financing arrangements, TfL could potentially use a privately financed solution to deliver the East of Silvertown project. Alternatively, TfL could borrow the necessary money from a variety of sources using a combination of mechanisms, including bonds, commercial paper, loans for specific projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board.

1.4.4. As part of the project, it is proposed that road user charging is introduced on both crossings (set at the same or similar level as to be introduced on the proposed Silvertown Tunnel scheme) and TfL expects that revenue collected would over time cover a significant proportion of the cost of the scheme.

1.4.5. TfL is also seeking devolution of a proportion of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) revenues to London. London has 10% of England’s registered vehicles and devolution of a consistent proportion of VED would support the modernisation of London’s strategic road network, including the East of Silvertown project.

1.5. Commercial Case

1.5.1. The project is commercially viable – the commercial case sets out the commercial structure, the accounting treatment and procurement approach for the project, which would be developed further when the options are defined.

1.5.2. While there is not yet a preferred approach, the project has characteristics which make it a suitable candidate for delivery via a privately financed solution e.g., a design, construction, finance and maintenance (DBFM) agreement. But other delivery mechanisms, such as “traditional” design and build or a regulatory model would also be considered.

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

1.5.4. The works contract would need to be competitively tendered via EU compliant means in the Official Journal of the European Union.

1.6. Management Case

1.6.1. The project is achievable - the ‘management case’ sets out a clear governance, process and programme for the further development of the project by TfL, an authority with a very successful experience and record in major project delivery.

1.6.2. TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing significant infrastructure projects. This ranges from modifications to existing infrastructure (such as repairs to the A4 Hammersmith flyover, modernisation of the London Underground, extensions to Tramlink and DLR) to major schemes such as Crossrail.

17

1.6.3. Much of TfL’s project development experience would therefore be transferrable to this scheme, notably support and advice from experienced promoters of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel project.

1.6.4. The current anticipated key milestones for the project are shown below.

Public consultation: late 2015 to Feb 2016

Report to the Mayor on the outcome of the consultation: March 2016

Brief the next Mayor on the River Crossings programme: May/June 2016

1.7. Conclusions

1.7.1. There is a compelling case for the East of Silvertown project and work will continue on the current options appraisal, such that a preferred solution is identified and progressed. The responses to the five key questions raised in the guidance can be summarised as follows:

• There is a clear case for change in the form of new river crossings in east London, to address the lack of connectivity across the Thames and to facilitate vital economic and housing growth. This case is supported by and in turn supports national, London-wide and local policy;

• The analysis demonstrates that the project is excellent value for money. Several options are under consideration, with the options considered in this report showing a very high potential Net Present Value;

• The project should be financially affordable and has the potential for a contribution from users through user charges and passengers fares;

• The project is commercially viable with a number of procurement and commercial options, which would be developed further when the options are defined;

• The project is achievable and TfL has a very strong track record in the development and delivery of major projects.

1.7.2. This SOBC reports on the majority of the likely impacts of the scheme, however, further work is required on the air quality, noise and social/distributional impacts in any future Outline and/or Full Business Case.

1.7.3. In particular, the work undertaken has highlighted several potential combinations of schemes and assessed their ability to meet the objectives, and their economic and other impacts. A key component of any final decision will be the views of the public and affected stakeholders, and therefore a consultation on the new information contained within this report will allow these options to be considered more fully and allow decisions on narrowing the options further to be taken.

1.7.4. In addition, this further work would elaborate on the potential commercial case and charging policy and various sensitivity tests.

18

2. The approach to the business case

2.1. Introduction

2.1.1. Transport for London (TfL) is proposing to construct two new fixed crossings of the River Thames between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel (Greenwich Peninsula – Silvertown) and the Dartford Crossing. These crossings are at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham (referred to as Belvedere).

2.1.2. By improving cross-river connectivity, the crossings would strengthen the economy of east London and its contribution to London as a whole. Importantly, new river crossings would help to support housing and employment growth in Opportunity Areas (OAs) on both sides of the river, address issues of deprivation and improve access to services and opportunities. The crossings would also improve the resilience of the transport network in east London, filling the long gap between existing road crossings (a distance of some 14 km).

2.1.3. This project sits within a wider series of new river crossings for London which are intended to reduce the barrier effect of the Thames. These crossings consist of public transport, highway, pedestrian and cycle links to improve people’s access to jobs, facilitate business activity, support housing development, enhance the resilience of the transport network and encourage more sustainable travel.

2.1.4. This document is the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for the East of Silvertown project, and Figure 2-1 below shows the proposed location of the two new crossings in east London (as well as the location of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel).

Figure 2-1 East of Silvertown crossing locations

2.1.5. The Study Area for this work incorporates the following local authorities – the London

boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Bexley and the Royal Borough of Greenwich. For wider context, the east sub-region is also referenced

East of Silvertown crossings

19

throughout this document. This incorporates the boroughs listed above as well as Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Redbridge and Lewisham.

2.1.6. The East of Silvertown project is currently at the feasibility stage, and TfL is assessing options to improve cross-river connectivity between east and southeast London to support growth and improve resilience. As such, this document does not present a preferred option but rather sets out the case for improving connectivity between east and southeast London and provides a short list of public transport options.

2.2. The five case model for transport appraisal

2.2.1. This business case is based on H.M. Treasury’s advice on evidence-based decision making as set out in the Green Book6 and uses the best practice five case model approach.

2.2.2. This approach assesses whether schemes:

• are supported by a robust case for change that fits with wider public policy objectives – the ‘strategic case’;

• demonstrate value for money – the ‘economic case’; • are commercially viable – the ‘commercial case’; • are financially affordable – the ‘financial case’; and • are achievable – the ‘management case’.

2.2.3. The evidence gathered as part of the business case preparation process has utilised the tools and guidance provided by the DfT, notably WebTAG7. This approach ensures that the evidence produced is robust and consistent for all the options examined in detail. This applies equally to those options proposed for investment and those, which following assessment, are not to be developed further.

2.3. The decision making process

2.3.1. The decision making process usually takes place in three phases. Each phase includes the preparation of a business case followed by an investment decision point. Each business case builds upon that previously prepared. Evidence is reviewed to ensure that it remains up to date, accurate and relevant. The SOBC is in Phase One of this iterative process; an Outline Business Case will be prepared at a later date once a preferred option has been identified. This will be followed by the development of a Full Business Case as shown below.

6 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220541/green_book_complete.pdf accessed 5 September 2014 7 See https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag accessed 5 September 2014

20

Figure 2-2 Stages of development

2.3.2. The current Phase One of this process focusses on articulating the need for the intervention and summarising the range of options developed and considered. This phase:

• is used to set out the strategic fit of the project in line with relevant national and London Mayoral and TfL policy objectives;

• confirms the strategic fit and the case for change; • scopes out the initial investment/intervention proposal; and • provides details of the project’s overall balance of benefits and costs against

objectives.

2.3.3. The next stage, Phase Two, would follow in 2016. TfL will reconfirm the conclusions from Phase One and will focus on a more detailed assessment of the options to find the best solution, culminating in the preparation of an Outline Business Case, which would build on this SOBC.

2.3.4. The final phase in the process, Phase Three, will result in the production of the Full Business Case – this will accompany application for powers for the project.

2.4. The role of the Mayor of London and TfL

2.4.1. This investment proposal is made by TfL, acting as the body responsible for planning, organising, controlling and, in some instances, operating transport within London for the Mayor. The Mayor is charged with setting the policy and strategy for transport which he has done by the publication of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).

2.4.2. TfL is also responsible for improving the transport network in London, including the majority of River Thames crossings for vehicular traffic (bridges, tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry) within the Greater London area.

2.4.3. TfL’s business strategy is decided by the Mayor through the MTS. The MTS is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor exercises his responsibilities for the planning, management and development of transport in London, for both the movement of people and goods. It takes into account the policies in the London Plan and the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS). It provides the policy context for the more detailed plans of the various transport-related implementation bodies, particularly TfL and the London boroughs.

2.4.4. The legislative framework for the MTS is laid down by the GLA Act 1999, as amended by the GLA Act 2007. The GLA Act 1999 sets out the general transport duties of the

21

Mayor and the GLA. It specifies that the transport strategy must contain policies for ‘the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London’, and proposals for securing the transport facilities and services needed to implement the Mayor’s policies over the lifetime of the MTS, with regard to the movement of people and goods. TfL is under a duty to use its powers to facilitate and implement the policies and proposals of the MTS.

22

3. The Strategic Case

3.1. Introduction

3.1.1. The Strategic Case is the first of the five cases forming this SOBC.

3.1.2. The Strategic Case demonstrates the need for an intervention (investment in new river crossings East of Silvertown). It sets out London’s key role in the UK economy, the characteristics of the east London economy and gives an overview of the significant growth opportunities that exist in this part of London. It articulates the problems that limited cross-river connectivity cause and why change is needed. It analyses the possible solutions to the problems. It describes the rationale for making the investment in fixed link river crossings, and how the investment furthers the aims and objectives of TfL as the sponsoring organisation.

3.1.3. This strategic case is set out in five sections, these are:

Part A: The economic and spatial context for growth in east London

Part B: The problem identified and the case for change

Part C: Scheme objectives and measures of success

Part D: Option development

Part E: Overview of options

Part F: Travel patterns in east London and the strategic policy context

PART A: THE ECONOMIC AND SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR GROWTH IN EAST LONDON

3.2. The importance of London’s growth to the UK

London’s role as a world city and its’ growth is vital to the UK economy 3.2.1. London plays a unique economic role in the UK as a highly competitive world city. It

contributes unique functions to the UK economy and the value of activity in London is particularly high. London accounts for over one-fifth of the UK economy and one-third of the UK’s exports of services.

3.2.2. Economic activity in London is concentrated in financial services, information and communication and professional and real estate activities. These are high value sectors but also sectors that benefit from agglomeration.

3.2.3. Productivity in London is much higher than the UK average. In 2013, in London Gross Value Added (GVA) per head was £40,215, compared to a UK average of £23,394. London contributes 22 per cent of the UK’s output despite having just 17 per cent of its employment and 13 per cent of its population.

3.2.4. London is a rapidly growing city with a population of 8.6 million people which is expected to grow to over 10 million by 2036, and to reach 11.3 million by 2050. London has a highly productive, strong economy and over the next 20 years, the

23

number of jobs in London is also projected to grow by 700,000 to 6.3 million. This growth is shown in Figure 3-1below.

Figure 3-1 Historic trends and projected growth in London’s employment and population to 2036

3.2.5. The growth of London has made a critical contribution to UK finances. In 2010/11,

London generated over £100bn in tax revenue to the UK Exchequer with London and the South East the only regions to make a net fiscal contribution to the UK public finances. Investing in the future growth of London is essential to build strong public finances.

3.2.6. Some people argue that this growth should not be encouraged – but London’s growth matters for the UK as a whole. With economic growth driving population growth, it is not possible to simply choose the former but reject the latter. Without supportive policies to maintain growth in London’s labour supply, the likely outcome is falling living standards.

London’s ability to grow is central to the national economy and providing sufficient housing for people is a core requirement

3.2.7. London needs 49,000 new homes per year but has delivered an average of only around 25,000 over the last 10 years. Indeed, to make up the existing backlog up to 62,000 homes are needed each year to 2025. As a result of this shortfall in supply of housing to meet rising demand, the affordability of housing has worsened.

3.2.8. Between 2009 and 2014, house prices in Greater London have increased by 44 per cent. Over the same period earnings growth has been weak, and so housing affordability has inevitably worsened with the affordability gap increasing. Average prices have increased faster in those boroughs closest to central London.

24

3.2.9. OAs are the capital’s major reservoir of brownfield land with significant capacity to accommodate new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility.”8

3.2.10. If London can’t grow by maximising development opportunities at these locations, the alternative is not stability, but decline and a loss of its role and status as a world city.

3.3. The role of east London in supporting London’s growth through meeting demand for new housing

East London has undergone a structural change and has a number of distinctive characteristics that set it apart from the rest of London

3.3.1. The east London sub-region comprises the nine boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Bexley and Lewisham and the Royal Borough of Greenwich, as set out in Figure 3-2 below.

Figure 3-2 The east London sub-region

3.3.2. East London has distinctive characteristics which are a crucial part of the London and national economy. East London forms part of the Thames Gateway corridor, which extends eastwards beyond London’s boundaries into Essex and Kent, along the Thames Estuary.

8 London Plan, Para 2.58

25

3.3.3. The Thames estuary was once the main artery for the export and import of goods to London and the Greater South East, and the backbone of a thriving manufacturing sector that grew around it. While many manufacturing industries have moved out of the area, resulting in structural change to the economy, a strong industrial presence remains. Today, the sectors that make up the majority of employment in east London are business and other services, construction, transport and distribution and ‘non-marketed’ services. These sectors are heavily reliant on the highway network.

3.3.4. There are large areas of land on both sides of the river classified as Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). East London contains nearly 40% of London’s industrial land. Industrial sectors such as wholesaling and warehousing, and support services play an important role in servicing businesses based in central parts of London. Wharves on the Thames still perform a function for handling aggregate imports and other bulk commodities.

3.3.5. This SIL includes a significant transport and logistics presence within east London and the wider Thames Gateway corridor, including the recently opened London Gateway container port, and distribution centres and warehousing. Some 30% of London’s warehousing space is in the East sub-region.

Changes to the structure of east London’s economy has left a legacy of significant amounts of under-utilised brownfield industrial land able to accommodate housing development

3.3.6. Over the last three decades, parts of east London have seen substantial levels of new housing and employment growth (with substantial new development taking place on brownfield sites) and regeneration has transformed much of the former Docklands. As a result, many previously derelict sites such as the Olympic Park in Stratford now have successful new uses. Nevertheless, a significant stock of brownfield land remains underutilised or vacant and this represents an opportunity for meeting much of London’s housing need.

3.3.7. This however requires unlocking through investment in infrastructure, a process that is supported by the London Plan and boroughs.

East London is experiencing rapid population growth. The population of east London is set to increase by 650,000 people by 2036

3.3.8. Forecast population growth in all but two of the nine boroughs in the east and southeast sub-region is expected to exceed the total London growth of 22 per cent, and the boroughs in the east sub-region are expected to account for over one third of London's total population growth between 2011 and 2036. Figure 3-3 shows the forecast spatial distribution of population growth by 2036.

3.3.9. Three of the five Study Area boroughs9 will experience population growth higher than the sub-region as a whole - Barking and Dagenham is forecast to see a 42 per cent increase in its population, and there is expected to be a 36 per cent increase in both

9 The five ‘Study Area’ boroughs are Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Havering and Newham.

26

Greenwich and Newham.

Figure 3-3 Population growth 2011-2036

3.3.10. The London Plan highlights the potential of the east London sub-region- with its large

areas of brownfield land - to deliver a substantial proportion of the housing growth forecast for the Capital. The area is set to meet a third of London’s new housing requirements. This growth is driven by opportunity, planning, momentum and a favourable investment climate.

3.3.11. However, there can be a high up front cost of remediating sites that were in former industrial use so that they can be made suitable for other uses, such as residential development.

3.3.12. House prices in several of the nine boroughs within the east London sub-region have risen at a slower rate than in London as a whole, making this area one of the most affordable parts of London to live in.

27

3.4. The role of east London in accommodating employment growth and the need to improve its economic performance

By 2036, it is forecast that east London will accommodate a growth in employment of 300,000 more jobs

3.4.1. In contrast to the significant share of London’s total population growth which the sub-region is expected to accommodate, the share of total employment growth in the east sub-region is expected to be smaller at around 17 per cent. The scale of employment growth across London is shown in Figure 3-4. The largest absolute growth in employment in the sub-region is expected in Tower Hamlets, with an additional 33,000 jobs expected by 2031.

Figure 3-4 Employment growth 2011-2036

3.4.2. Disparities between the amount and location of forecast population and employment

growth will generate increased commuter travel demands outside residents’ home boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand.

3.4.3. For example, an increase in the number of jobs located in the Royal Docks will increase the number of journeys from Greenwich. Improving access to jobs is an important element of the convergence agenda in east London.

28

Light industrial land uses will continue to be an important part of the east London economy

3.4.4. Despite the expected land use changes in the future, the need for industrial land uses in the sub-region will remain and freight movement in the sub-region is expected to grow significantly in the future as it adapts to a growing population, and as a result of the strategic role of the sub-region within an international gateway.

3.4.5. As outlined earlier, there are large areas of land on both sides of the river in the Study Area that have been classified as SIL. This means that these sites are reserved for industrial, distribution and logistics land uses. As other parts of London (e.g. Old Oak Common, Nine Elms) undergo a change in land use from industrial to residential/mixed use, the SILs in the Study Area could become even more strategically important to London and freight and servicing trips to/from these locations would increase further. Capacity will need to be provided for these additional light goods vehicle (LGV) and heavy goods vehicle (HGV) trips, along with better access to the strategic road network for these industries to continue and to expand.

3.4.6. This implies that the development of OAs, both to the north and south of the Thames, in the east sub-region is also unlikely to be accomplished without the facilitation of access for deliveries, servicing and freight.

If London is to continue to grow successfully, then there needs to be convergence between the more economically strong parts of outer London and those parts of outer London which currently underperform

3.4.7. Figure 3-5 below shows the GVA value of jobs across London. It shows that two parts of London – outer east and northeast London and outer south London – perform significantly below the London average in terms of this productivity measure.

Figure 3-5 London Gross Value Added per filled job

3.4.8. Rather than seeing convergence, the relative productivity performance of these two areas has instead worsened significantly in the 10 years to 2012. Over that period

29

GVA/job in outer east and northeast London fell from 77 to 74 percent of the London average. Similarly, for outer south London the ratio fell from 71 to 68 percent.

3.4.9. This also highlights the increasing inequality of job opportunities across the capital in response to the changing nature and structure of the London economy. Inner east London has attracted higher value jobs to the city fringe and Isle of Dogs in recent years, sufficient to move productivity levels above the London average, the same cannot be said for all parts of outer London.

3.4.10. The London Plan sets out how the outer London boroughs can accommodate economic growth in Policy 2.7.This policy states that constraints and opportunities in the economic growth of outer London should be addressed in order to improve on outer London’s economic trend.

3.4.11. The policy suggests that this could be achieved by enabling existing growth sectors to perform better by increasing the competitive attractiveness of outer London locations, enhancing capacity to support viable local activities, coordinating investment by the public sector to complement private sector investment, and addressing deprivation and housing shortage in order to attract new employees.

3.5. The significant role that Opportunity Areas in east London will play in accommodating future growth

3.5.1. The London Plan also states that outer London has important strategic functions as a place to live, and it will be important to ensure the area continues to provide a range of homes in sufficient numbers to support its own economic success, and that of inner and central London.

The Opportunity Areas in east London can accommodate significant levels of housing and employment growth

3.5.2. Within east London, 14 OAs have been designated, which together provide a major opportunity to deliver more housing to help meet growth objectives of the London Plan. Figure 3-6 shows the scale of population and employment growth they are anticipated to accommodate, based on London Plan targets.

30

Figure 3-6 London Plan targets for housing and employment growth for the 14 Opportunity Areas in the east sub-region

3.5.3. The GLA forecasts the future distribution of employment growth across London based

on the triangulation of three sources of information, namely historic trends, development site capacity and future changes in employment connectivity.

3.5.4. While the forecast levels of growth that the 14 east London OAs can accommodate is already large, there are expectations that it could be much higher, with intensification of existing sites and development of new ones not taken account of in the figures presented above. Therefore, the level of growth seen in areas such as the Royal Docks could well be higher in terms of both employment and population.

3.5.5. The East of Silvertown Study Area is characterised by large areas of potential development/intensification, which could be unlocked through a number of interventions including those that deliver improved connectivity.

3.5.6. The GLA projections for the study area demonstrate scope for ambitious levels of growth for the study area boroughs, supported by further infrastructure. The East of Silvertown project has therefore adopted a compatible methodology to assess the impact the contribution of highway and public transport connectivity improvements have in terms of meeting these growth projections.

TfL, through the River Crossings Development Study, has estimated the development capacities within distinct Property Market Areas for housing and employment

3.5.7. TfL commissioned the River Crossings Development Study (Atkins, 2014) that identified all major development sites within the study area of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel and East of Silvertown crossings. The identified sites were appraised in terms of their viability of potential development, taking into account various constraints such as market demand, physical site factors, policy alignment and current access.

31

3.5.8. Following on from this work, in 2015 TfL has re-assessed the capacity database in more detail for the East of Silvertown study area with a focus on distinct Property Market Areas (PMAs). The results of this assessment are shown in Figure 3-7. This suggests that many of the PMAs in the vicinity of the proposed fixed river crossings have the capacity to accommodate significant levels of housing development.

Figure 3-7 Estimated development capacity by PMA

32

PART B: THE PROBLEM IDENTIFIED AND THE CASE FOR CHANGE

3.6. East London’s transport network has poor cross-river connectivity

In east London there are fewer crossings of the River Thames than in the rest of the city

3.6.1. The River Thames historically provided the essential means by which London was linked to the rest of the world. At the same time, it has acted as a barrier to travel between north and south London.

3.6.2. In west London, the river is narrower and unsuitable for larger vessels, so there are frequent bridges over the Thames. East of Tower Bridge, the river broadens and deepens. The flight paths of aircraft to/from London City Airport in the Royal Docks also place constraints on the height of any new bridge structures in the vicinity. As a result of the width of the river and the need to have higher clearances for bigger ships, there are far fewer river crossings for vehicular traffic (including buses and freight as well as cars) in east than west London – with only three road vehicle crossings of the River Thames in the 23 km between Tower Bridge and the M25 – the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels and the Woolwich Ferry. Only one low capacity cross-river bus service operates in London to the east of Tower Bridge.

3.6.3. The river has shaped and influenced the spatial development of east London. Both banks of the Thames are characterised by lower cost industrial land, with relatively self-contained town centres such as Barking, Woolwich and Bexleyheath serving them.

3.6.4. The structural changes that have accompanied the decline in manufacturing and port-related activities have provided an opportunity for regeneration of under-utilised brownfield sites.

3.6.5. However, the high availability of land for redevelopment represents a huge opportunity to accommodate the growth generated by London’s role as a thriving world city, and to do so in a sustainable manner, creating high quality places to live.

3.6.6. Therefore there is a need to unlock the full growth potential of east London within the overall vision for the future of London.

The lack of cross-river connectivity in east London is a significant barrier to movement which limits people’s job and leisure opportunities, restricts access to labour markets and negatively affects business to business activities

3.6.7. In outer east London, businesses based on one side of the river are unable to efficiently or cost-effectively serve customers on the other bank of the river, reducing economies of scale and scope for expansion. This reduced pool of potential customers adversely impacts on both levels of recruitment and investment in training.

3.6.8. An additional 1.5 million people are forecast to be living in the Capital by 2031 – and with over one third of this growth expected in east London, it is imperative that the conditions exist to facilitate this growth to ensure that London remains a key driver of the UK economy. If the economy does not thrive, then the forecast level of population growth will not be realised. Improved cross-river infrastructure in east London is needed to facilitate the forecast growth.

33

3.6.9. The three existing highway river crossings in east London do not adequately cater for current cross-river travel needs. Without investment in new crossings to improve levels of connectivity, then outer east London’s potential contribution to growth will be constrained. Businesses in the area may find it challenging to compete and grow as their access to customers will remain more limited than businesses located in other parts of London.

3.6.10. There are also severe resilience problems, which while in part would be addressed by the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, will continue to impact on journey time reliability and result in some journeys being long and indirect.

3.6.11. The composition of businesses in east London, with clusters of logistics, distribution, support services and construction-related industries means that east London is particularly dependent on its road network.

3.6.12. A solution to overcome the barrier effect of the Thames and improve transport network resilience in east London needs to be delivered within the next 10-15 years to ensure that the substantial growth planned in the area can be supported.

Local businesses currently see the river as a barrier to the development of their business

3.6.13. TfL commissioned a Business Survey10 in 2013 to seek views on proposals for east London river crossings. This was a stratified survey of 850 businesses based on the sectoral and size distribution of businesses in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley.

3.6.14. The first key finding of the research was that businesses expect the east London River Crossings Programme to generate a strong positive economic effect, with 83 per cent of businesses expecting the local economy to improve overall as a result of better cross-river connections.

3.6.15. Another key finding of the research was that businesses value improvements to cross-river journeys, with 64 per cent of firms regarding the ability to cross the River Thames as important to the successful operation of their business with only 18 per cent agreeing or strongly agreeing that current crossing options are adequate.

3.6.16. Around a third of businesses see the river as a barrier to the development of their business. Again, this was particularly an issue for businesses in Greenwich (49 per cent) as well as Newham (47 per cent) and Bexley (40 per cent).

3.6.17. Around two thirds of firms anticipate an increase in business from the other side of the river should the investment package be implemented.

3.6.18. In the long term, businesses anticipate that staff recruitment would be enhanced following delivery of new river crossings. Almost half of businesses would expect to recruit additional staff as a result. In the construction sector, this proportion jumps to 59 per cent.

10 Business Survey, WSP, May 2014

34

3.6.19. Freight and logistics businesses are expected to benefit from the east London River Crossings Programme. More efficient use of supplies and deliveries is anticipated by 65 per cent of firms as a result of the programme.

3.6.20. Some 59 per cent of firms would be prepared to pay a reasonable user charge to cross the river, if journey times became more reliable.

3.6.21. In terms of business development, businesses are currently more concerned about accessibility than site-specific characteristics or staffing. ‘Congestion and time wasted in traffic’ were the main concerns relating to choice of business location in east London.

3.6.22. If cross-river transport connectivity were to be improved, then this would facilitate economic growth in a number of ways through:

• Improving business efficiency through time savings and reliability, expanding labour markets and increasing competition through improving access to customers and suppliers;

• Increasing the attractiveness and image of a location, thereby increasing demand and property values (hence encouraging further development) and drawing potential inward investors; and

• Improving the resilience and reliability of the transport network reducing costs to logistics operators and supply businesses.

3.6.23. Evidence from elsewhere demonstrates that improved connectivity from river crossings can impact significantly on employment growth, with the authorities in close proximity to the Dartford Crossing seeing growth rates of 20 per cent above those of the wider sub-region during the past 20 years. A study carried out for the DfT suggested that the original Severn Bridge (opened in 1966) contributed to the creation of between 23,940 and 34,140 jobs over the 20 years since its construction. It was estimated that this equates to an increase in economic activity and employment in industrial south Wales of about 4%.

3.6.24. Analysis of the spatial distribution of the Dartford Crossing employment impacts suggests that these are most likely to be felt in authorities directly linked by the new crossing, although there may be some displacement effects with new employment choosing to locate closer to the crossing at the expense of other authorities in reasonable proximity to the crossing.

3.6.25. The impact of new crossings on housing growth is less certain, and is much more aligned to local authority planning policy. However, analysis from the Dartford Crossing suggests that dwelling growth rates in both Thurrock and Dartford have been above the regional averages by 28 per cent and 34 per cent respectively since the crossing opened.

35

3.7. Most improvements in cross-river connectivity have been focussed on public transport and within inner east London

There has been substantial investment to improve cross-river connectivity by public transport in inner east London but none in highway nor in public transport connectivity in outer east London

3.7.1. As Figure 3-8 shows, there has been a period of sustained investment in public transport capacity in inner east London over the past 20 years including Crossrail 1. Prior to 1999, London Underground’s east London line represented the only rail crossing of the River Thames in east London, providing a local shuttle from New Cross to Shoreditch.

Figure 3-8 Public transport and highway capacity, 1992-2022

3.7.2. Since 1999, new cross-river rail links have been or will shortly be provided on the

following routes in inner east London:

• Jubilee line (opened 1999, and subsequently upgraded with more frequent and longer trains);

• Docklands Light Railway (extended to Greenwich and Lewisham in 1999, and subsequently enhanced with longer trains, and extended to Woolwich in 2009);

• High Speed 1, which started operating frequent high speed trains between Kent and east London in 2009;

• London Underground’s East London line, which was transferred to the London Overground network, with new services to a much wider range of destinations from 2010, and further services from 2012;

• Crossrail, now under construction, which will provide a new high frequency cross-river link from Abbey Wood and Woolwich to the Royal Docks, Canary Wharf and beyond from 2018.

• In addition, the Emirates Air Line provides a direct link between North Greenwich and the Royal Docks.

36

This improved connectivity and capacity has unlocked and enabled significant levels of regeneration in inner parts of east London.

3.7.3. Investment in the DLR network and then the Jubilee line extension and the fixed cross-river public transport links mentioned above serving inner east London, has helped enable many high value services which would traditionally have been confined to central London to now have bases in Canary Wharf. The same public transport links have also enabled a major concert arena (the O2 Arena) on the Greenwich Peninsula and an international conference centre (ExCeL) at the Royal Victoria Dock to be established.

3.7.4. Most recently, the Olympic Park at Stratford occupies former industrial land within the Lea Valley, slightly to the north of the Docklands area but closely linked to it by the River Lea, the A12 and the DLR and Jubilee line.

Many development sites in outer east London do not have the public transport networks and capacity required to enable higher densities of housing that would maximise their contribution towards growth

3.7.5. The new cross-river public transport connections that have been provided are all located in inner east London and there have been no new connections provided east of Woolwich.

3.7.6. Whilst the PMAs in the vicinity of the proposed river crossings (set out in Figure 3-7) have both the capacity and availability of land to accommodate significant levels of growth, this is not by itself any guarantee that the additional housing will be delivered. Alongside costs associated with remediation of industrial land, these areas of development opportunity within outer east London will only fulfil their maximum growth potential if there is upfront investment in infrastructure, including utilities, schools, transport and open space.

3.7.7. This need for infrastructure investment, coupled with low land values affects the viability of redevelopment. Private sector investment in property will be attracted towards areas that offer attractive commercial returns on investment.

3.7.8. In recent years, the boroughs in outer east London have seen some minor employment growth, although this has largely been in population-related sectors, which expand as the population grows, and has masked a decline in the wider economy. In contrast to the strong employment growth within central London, the more limited employment opportunities available in outer east London boroughs mean only those development opportunities that have good transport connectivity to other parts of London are in high demand and are coming forward. Currently many brownfield sites do not have the public transport networks and capacity to support these areas sufficiently to support the densities of homes to maximise this opportunity (see Figure 3-15 for public transport accessibility levels in the Thames Gateway).

3.7.9. Therefore, improved development site access is needed in many cases to better link them in to existing road and public transport networks. This is necessary in order to help make them appealing and attractive locations to prospective residents or for businesses. If development sites are seen to be difficult to reach from existing networks or if travel times are longer than for surrounding areas, then this is likely to reduce the level of interest.

37

3.8. Current cross-river provision in east London for vehicular traffic

The limited number of highway crossings in east London does not cater adequately for the travel needs of vehicular traffic

3.8.1. However, there has been no corresponding increase in cross-river highway provision within London since the construction of the southbound Blackwall Tunnel in the 1960s (although just outside London’s boundary the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge on the M25 corridor at Dartford opened in 1991), despite the significant growth experienced. Figure 3-9 illustrates the difference in the availability of road crossings over the Thames in east, central and west London (noting those with restrictions on use), from the M25 London orbital motorway in the west to the M25 Dartford Crossing in the east. Discounting crossings within the Central London Congestion Charging Zone, in west London between Vauxhall Bridge and the M25 there are 17 crossings in 29 km yet in east London between Tower Bridge and the M25 there are just three crossings in 23 km.

Figure 3-9 Tower Bridge to M25: three crossings in 23 km

38

There is significant freight/business use of the existing crossings in east London

3.8.2. In addition to private vehicle trips, the east sub-region also accommodates a significant proportion of London’s freight industry. As per the rest of London, around 90% of freight and servicing trips in east London are undertaken by road. As stated earlier, some 30 per cent of London’s warehousing space is in the sub-region – a similar proportion to the west sub-region, which has 32 per cent.

3.8.3. One third of vehicles using the Blackwall Tunnel and over half of those using the Woolwich Ferry are goods vehicles, highlighting the importance of these crossings for freight and servicing trips. Traffic counts undertaken in 2012 for TfL’s river crossings Highway Assignment Model found that 35 per cent of Passenger Car Units (PCU) at Blackwall Tunnel during the peak hour were goods vehicles (LGVs and HGVs). For the Woolwich Ferry, 52 per cent of PCUs were LGVs/HGVs.

3.8.4. The nature of these freight trips involves servicing of retail and industrial premises, deliveries of materials and supplies to construction sites and business to business services. The lack of storage space on many premises require frequent deliveries and the wide range of types of goods mean that road based freight using HGVs and LGVs is the only realistic option. There are a limited number of rail freight terminals and wharves, which are well suited to handling high volume bulk freight movements. Therefore there is a continued need for these freight journeys to be undertaken by road and with the planned increase in population in east and southeast London, the proportion of freight related cross-river journeys is likely to increase.

3.8.5. The freight sector is subject to the same issues as other road users, including severance and journey time unreliability – both of which are exacerbated by the scarcity of Thames crossings in east London.

All three river crossings in east London (east of Tower Bridge) experience capacity constraints and have restrictions on the type of vehicles that can use them – which particularly affect HGV freight trips

3.8.6. Of the three east London crossings between Tower Bridge and Dartford, one is the low capacity Woolwich Ferry (which does not operate 24/7)11 and the other two are the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels which both have restrictions on use by large vehicles. This means that for certain categories of road users, commercial traffic in particular, the highway river crossing opportunities available in the Study Area is limited not only by number but also by restrictions on weight, height, length and/or width. For safety reasons, there are also restrictions on the nature of loads which may be carried in tunnels12.

11 The Woolwich Ferry operates 6.10am to 8pm Monday to Saturday (incl. most public holidays) and 11.30am to 7.30pm on Sundays. 12 Restrictions under the European Agreement on the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods

39

3.8.7. This means that certain road vehicles with origins or destinations in east London, may need to take very lengthy diversionary routes, possibly on inappropriate roads, in order to cross the River Thames. The Woolwich Ferry provides a useful function in this context. Despite carrying a relatively small number of vehicles, it affords a river crossing opportunity for certain goods vehicles that are unable to use the other crossings. Unfortunately, its role is reduced through the ferry being closed in the evenings and overnight, together with limited Sunday operating hours. The age of the current ferries used on the route also means that they suffer from reliability problems.

The limited number of river crossings means that many local trips to reach destinations the other side of the river must travel over longer distances, resulting in longer journey times.

3.8.8. The current lack of connectivity and the resultant lengthy routes for certain journeys is shown on Table 3-1 and Figure 3-10 shows the route that a vehicular trip between Thamesmead and Beckon would take via either the Blackwall Tunnel or the Dartford Crossing. In practice, the journey times by vehicle under free flow conditions are not experienced during the morning peak and therefore journey times are, in reality, longer.

3.8.9. While there are alternative routes to cross the river, these are in all cases significantly greater than the as the crow-fly distances involved. This means in the current situation that existing or potential trips incur a significant distance and time ‘penalty’ in these cross-river journeys and even with the addition of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, these lengthy diversion requirements will still exist. Due to the length of the journeys, the time taken to get between these places is long.

Table 3-1 Journey pair distance/time estimates13 Thamesmead – Beckton Journey distance (km) Freeflow time (min) As the crow flies 4 n/a Via Blackwall Tunnel 18 25 Via Woolwich Ferry 9 35 Via Dartford Crossing 36 34 Belvedere – Rainham Distance (km) Freeflow time (min) As the crow flies 4 n/a Via Blackwall Tunnel 28 34 Via Woolwich Ferry 20 45 Via Dartford Crossing 24 23

13 Estimated journey times measured by Google maps – TfL analysis

40

Figure 3-10 Current vehicular trips between Thamesmead and Beckton via Blackwall Tunnel and Dartford Crossing

3.8.10. A corollary of this is that in areas where developed highway networks each side of the

river are separated from one another by a lack of cross-river links, the provision of even a single new link has the potential to dramatically alter access to networks and the social and economic opportunities this offers.

Route via the Blackwall Tunnel

Route via the Dartford Crossing

18 km journey distance with a minimum 25 minute journey time

36 km journey distance with a minimum 34 minute journey time

41

The river can be a significant barrier to accessing employment opportunities by car - Beckton residents have access to 10 times more jobs within a 45 minute drive than Thamesmead residents

3.8.11. As set out in Figure 3-11, the river acts as a real barrier to job opportunities, with a much smaller number of jobs available to people living south of the river in east London when compared to most other parts of London.

Figure 3-11 Number of jobs accessible within 37 minutes - 2011

3.8.12. The barrier effect of the Thames is also clearly evident when using TfL’s Travel

Options Pie assessment tool.

3.8.13. Figure 3-12 shows that for people who live in Thamesmead, there are fewer jobs accessible north of the river within a 30 minute journey by either car or public transport. This contrasts with the significantly larger number of jobs that are accessible within 30 minutes from Beckton, directly across the river from Thamesmead, as shown in Figure 3-13.

42

Figure 3-12 Jobs accessible within 30 minutes travel time of Thamesmead, 2011

Figure 3-13 Jobs accessible within 30 minutes travel time of Beckton, 2011

3.8.14. This differential in cross-river highway provision has had a significant effect on the

relative extent of cross-river travel in the eastern and western halves of the Capital by influencing whether, how and where people travel. This issue is looked at in detail within Part F of the Strategic Case. The limited number and location of crossings in east London is also likely to have influenced the type of land uses in various locations.

43

3.9. Cross-river connectivity within outer east London

There is a strong disparity in the number of cross-river bus services between west and east London, reflecting the limited number of river crossings in east London, resulting in fewer opportunities for travel by public transport

3.9.1. Bus travel is the dominant public transport mode in outer London and yet the lack of cross-river connectivity means there are no bus services east of the Blackwall Tunnel.

3.9.2. Figure 3-14 highlights the notable disparity in cross-river bus route coverage between east and west London, which is a consequence of the very limited cross-river road connections.

3.9.3. The figure shows all cross-river bus routes in red - there are 47 bus routes which cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge and only a single route crossing the river east of Tower Bridge - the 108 between Stratford and Lewisham via the Blackwall Tunnel14.

3.9.4. The barrier to the provision of cross-river bus services in east London is two-fold; on the limited number of crossing options and congestion relating to the Blackwall Tunnel combine to make journeys by bus less attractive due to longer travel distances, long journey times and poor service reliability.

14 Routes which cross the river in central London, using Vauxhall Bridge, Tower Bridge, or crossing points in between these two are coloured light pink. Routes which cross the river outside these two bridges are coloured red.

44

Figure 3-14 Contrast in cross-river bus services between east and west London

3.9.5. The one bus service that crosses the river in east London can suffer from significant

disruption when the Blackwall Tunnel is congested or temporarily closed. While the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, with much improved reliability, offers the opportunity to recast services in the area and radically improve cross-river bus journeys in inner east London, there still will not be any bus services linking the east and southeast of outer London, despite bus travel being the dominant public transport mode in outer London.

3.9.6. In addition to road and rail-based public transport, some river bus services operate in the eastern section of the Thames. They provide a useful radial link between east London and parts of central London, and also serve cross-river trips along the inner section of the Thames but do not provide any crossing opportunities in areas east of Greenwich Pier.

Despite recent investment, Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) in significant parts of east and southeast London remain very low

3.9.7. The very low PTAL levels within areas of east London are indicated by the large areas of blue and grey in Figure 3-15 below – with only a small number of areas, largely around key centres such as Stratford, Woolwich and Barking, where connectivity levels by public transport are high.

45

Figure 3-15 Public Transport Accessibility Levels London Thames Gateway, 2031

Current provision for cross-river movements by walking and cycling is poor

3.9.8. The scale and role of the River Thames as a major shipping navigation channel in east London makes the provision of convenient pedestrian and cycle links across the river significantly more challenging and costly compared with areas of London to the west of Tower Bridge.

3.9.9. Cross-river routes for cyclists and pedestrians are provided via dedicated foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich (see Figure 3-16). Built in the early twentieth century, these have recently undergone refurbishment by the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

3.9.10. In addition, there are some rail links which cyclists can use to cross the Thames, and the Emirates Air Line provides a cross-river cable car link for pedestrians and cyclists between the Greenwich Peninsula and Royal Docks.

3.9.11. Cyclists have more restricted public transport options than pedestrians, due to restrictions on the carriage of (non-folded) cycles on peak services on the Jubilee line and DLR and in future on Crossrail. However, cyclists can take their cycles through the foot tunnels and on the Woolwich Ferry free of charge. As noted above, bicycles may also be carried on the Emirates Air Line.

46

Figure 3-16 Fixed river crossings in the Study Area for pedestrians and cyclists

3.9.12. There are low pedestrian and cycle flows across the river east of Tower Bridge, with the highest being those on the ferry that connects Rotherhithe to and Canary Wharf (on the western edge of the study area) and the Greenwich foot tunnel.

3.10. Highway network resilience

3.10.1. The term ‘resilience’ in this context describes the ability of the transport network to provide and maintain an acceptable level of service in the face of both planned and unplanned incidents. For cross-river highway network this is a function of:

• The number of crossings and the distance between them; • Their capacity to meet demand and the consequent implications should full or

partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary, including the ability of operating crossings to handle traffic diverted from non-operational crossings; and

• Their susceptibility to closure; for instance, an inability to accommodate all vehicle types, maintenance needs for old assets and/or susceptibility to adverse weather causing closures.

47

The lack of resilience of the cross-river highway network is a significant issue for businesses

3.10.2. Resilience is a significant issue for businesses, increasing costs and uncertainty – recent research on behalf of TfL found that 67 per cent of firms located in the Study Area consider that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business15. The same research found that 44 per cent of firms think predictability of cross-river journey times is poor or very poor, compared to 12 per cent who regard it as good or very good. Journey time reliability is a particular issue for firms in Greenwich and 80 per cent of firms anticipate more predictable journey times as a result of the east London River Crossings Programme.

3.10.3. Resilience is an issue for individual crossings, but is also applicable across the wider road network, where the overall number of links between different parts of the network and the distances between them are significant. In east London, the overall resilience of the road network is sub-optimal due, in part, to the small number of river crossings and the significant distances between them.

3.10.4. The lack of river crossings means commuter and business traffic travelling from south of the river to the north side must converge on the three river crossings on a stretch of 15km of the river in east London. This reliance on a small number of crossings significantly reduces network resilience and compounds traffic congestion and safety problems when incidents occur. These problems are likely to have a particularly pronounced impact on commercial traffic, which faces restrictions on the crossings it can use.

3.10.5. Incidents at crossings causing obstruction and delay are excessively frequent and have significant adverse impacts across the wider road network. Between November 2012 and November 2013 there were a total of some 1,100 unplanned incidents in the Blackwall tunnel– around 55 per cent of these were in relation to overheight vehicles, and a further 24 per cent were caused by vehicle breakdowns16.

3.10.6. The potential for serious and severe incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel to have a far-reaching impact on London's road network can be illustrated through an analysis of an incident which occurred on the evening of Sunday 29 November 2009. On this occasion, a vehicle fire in the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel caused the closure of the tunnel in both directions on Sunday evening and the closure of the northbound bore most of Monday 30 November. The closure caused considerable delays to traffic across large sections of the road network, and particularly in southeast London as drivers sought alternative routes and river crossings.

3.10.7. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel project aims to address the existing lack of resilience experienced at the Blackwall Tunnel. The proposed tunnel would provide an important cross-river link not only to help to serve the projected growth in east London but crucially to address existing congestion and reliability issues at the Blackwall Tunnel,

15 East London River Crossings – Business Survey, WSP, published June 2014 16 TfL Network Performance Data, 2012/3

48

which currently present a substantial cost both to individuals and businesses. It would also transform cross-river bus connectivity in this part of east London – providing new bus routes across the Thames.

3.10.8. However, despite the improvements to the resilience of the river crossing network in east London that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel would deliver, large connectivity gaps would remain between Silvertown and the Dartford Crossing, due to the absence of any other fixed road crossings.

3.10.9. Further east, there are also current network resilience issues relating to the Woolwich Ferry. At busy times, the queue for traffic wishing to board the Woolwich Ferry often builds up considerably, sometimes significantly obstructing and delaying other road users, particularly on the southern side of the river.

3.10.10. Figure 3-17 below illustrates an occasion where the queue for the Ferry extended back through the roundabout and caused significant queuing on the eastbound and northbound approaches to the junction.

Figure 3-17 Woolwich Ferry queues blocking back through the roundabout (south side)

3.10.11. A large majority of traffic on these roads is not seeking to use the Ferry, but associated queuing and congestion is causing significant delays to other local traffic around Woolwich town centre. Other analysis17 showed that bus journey times in the area can be significantly affected by this queuing, which impacts on bus users over a wide area.

3.10.12. The Dartford Crossing also has some characteristics that impede its’ resilience. During high winds or icy weather, the bridge can be required to close. Moreover, neither the bridge nor the tunnels have hard shoulders and so the crossings need to be closed to facilitate recovery of broken down vehicles or to undertake maintenance. This is due to

17 TfL iBus data

49

there being safety-related restrictions on vehicle recovery being undertaken or on maintenance staff working alongside traffic.

3.10.13. The Department for Transport and Highways England are currently considering proposals for a new Lower Thames Crossing, which would go some way towards alleviating congestion currently associated with the Dartford Crossing, while recently implemented free-flowing tolling is intended to improve capacity and reduce the delays that were experienced at the toll barriers.

3.10.14. Initial indications are that the free-flow tolling scheme has been successful in reducing delays, but the scheme was not designed to have a significant effect on the overall capacity or resilience of the crossing.

3.11. Deprivation

3.11.1. While significant regeneration has already taken place, the east London boroughs that lie on the River Thames together still form one of the most deprived areas not only of London but of the whole of the UK, as illustrated by Figure 3-18.

3.11.2. The lack of good transport connections and capacity is a major barrier to the economic growth which is needed in this wider area, with the lack of cross-river connectivity limiting people’s job and education opportunities.

3.11.3. As the experience of areas of London’s Docklands and the Olympic Park site has shown, investment in improved transport infrastructure can provide positive regeneration benefits, across the economic cycle, in terms of job creation/location and inward investment.

Figure 3-18 Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 showing clustering in east London

50

3.11.4. The population in this part of London is expected to grow at a faster rate than employment because the boroughs within the Study Area will continue to be among the most affordable places in London to live. This growing population of working age people will therefore need to travel beyond the Study Area and within it, including commuting across the river, in order to reach areas of employment opportunities. If cross-river travel remains difficult, particularly for low income workers, then it is possible that the level of deprivation in the east sub-region could in fact be further exacerbated, if people are unable to access job opportunities at a reasonable cost and travel time.

3.11.5. With the current lack of cross-river connectivity, many of these new jobs on the north side of the river will not be accessible to those living on the south side.

3.12. Summary of the case for change

3.12.1. A summary of the case for change is given below.

London needs to capitalise on development opportunities for it to continue to grow and succeed

• To retain London’s world city status, the supply of housing needs to be increased or affordability and quality of life will continue to worsen, threatening the city’s ability to continue to attract investment and skilled workers.

Based on current planning policies, east London is able to play a vital role as a location for significant new housing development

• East London contains 14 OAs, with land available that can meet a large proportion of London’s future housing need. A number of these OAs, including London Riverside and Bexley Riverside are amongst the largest of the 38 OAs across London in terms of both land area and capacity to accommodate development.

• The East of Silvertown Study Area is characterised by large areas of land which have the potential for development/intensification. Development within such areas could be unlocked by investment in transport infrastructure that addresses the existing lack of connectivity.

• East London’s forecast growth cannot be realised without investment in transport infrastructure including improvements to cross-river connectivity.

• The poor cross-river transport connections in east London affect the perception of the area, potentially impacting on developers’ willingness to invest in the area, meaning that land is either underutilised or not developed at all.

The lack of cross-river highway links in east London reduces connectivity and acts as a major constraint both on businesses and on residents’ access to employment and other opportunities

• The geography of the Thames and the historical development of east London has resulted in few road-based river crossings, and this has led to the concentration of road travel movements on the small number of available river crossings and routes leading to them.

• This limited cross-river connectivity constrains travel between large populations and businesses located on either side of the river.

51

• Survey work suggests that businesses in east London: (i) value improvements to cross-river; (ii) are not satisfied with current crossing options; (iii) are concerned about the constraints and disruptions placed on their business by poor reliability of cross-river journey times; and (iv) see the river as a barrier to the development of their business.

• It also limits the number of jobs people can access, reducing leisure and education opportunities and restricting access to markets for businesses. It also results in longer and more indirect journeys for many, which increases the costs of business.

• Disparities between the amount and location of forecast population and employment growth will generate increased travel demands outside residents’ home boroughs, including increased cross-river travel demand. For example, an increase in the number of jobs located in the Royal Docks will increase the number of journeys from Greenwich. It is desirable that existing and future residents of all boroughs in east and southeast London have access to the largest number of jobs possible, which means improved connectivity across the river, including new cross-river public transport options.

East London is an important employment location for businesses that are heavily reliant on a reliable strategic highway network, and this will remain so in the future

• East London plays an important function as a key strategic location for light industrial employment in sectors such as warehousing, distribution and wholesaling, which are all vital to the functioning of the city. These businesses are especially dependent on the road network.

• Demand for freight movement in London (for which in many cases the opportunity to shift mode does not exist) will also continue to increase over the medium to long term as the overall population grows. East London, with its large areas of SIL, will play an important part in the servicing and delivery industries, which will generate demand for cross-river travel to service areas such as Canary Wharf.

The current lack of cross-river highway connectivity has an adverse impact on road network performance and resilience

• The small number of river crossings in east London has led to severe congestion and resilience issues, particularly at the Blackwall Tunnel. The proposed Silvertown Tunnel is designed to overcome some of these pressures, but would not address the broader problem of poor connectivity.

• While public transport mode share is increasing as a result of this investment, road based travel in absolute numbers continues to increase and remains a very important mode of transport for many – particularly where the opportunity to shift modes does not exist (e.g., servicing and delivery trips).

• And despite this investment there remains a distinct lack of connectivity in east London, for both highway and public transport, with the Woolwich Ferry being the only highway crossing between the proposed Silvertown Tunnel and the Dartford Crossing – a distance of some 20 km.

• Cross-river highway connections are not only important for private and commercial traffic but also for bus services and the lack of highway crossings means that there are no bus connections east of the Blackwall Tunnel. Additionally, there are no rail connections east of Woolwich.

52

• While car mode share is forecast to continue to decrease across London, the numbers travelling by private vehicle are forecast to continue to grow due to population growth.

Outer east London has poor cross-river public transport connectivity – addressing this will enable denser development.

• There has been significant investment by TfL in cross-river public transport connectivity in inner east London, shown in Figure 3-8, which has unlocked regeneration and development opportunities. There has been no investment east of the DLR extension to Woolwich. Similar investment is now needed in outer east London. Investment to improve levels of public transport connectivity within OAs and other growth areas, including better cross-river connectivity can support delivery of higher housing densities.

• Given forecast levels of population growth, public transport will continue to play an important part of travel in the sub-region and its mode share is expected to increase.

New river crossings conform with regional and national policy • The MTS identifies the need for additional crossings in east London (further detail on

relevant policy is set out in Part F). These crossings are essential to delivery of the overall package of river crossings and are necessary to provide the levels of connectivity required to support the long term growth of the area.

• Similarly, the Department for Transport is currently considering proposals for a new Lower Thames Crossing to alleviate congestion associated with the Dartford Crossing. The Dartford Crossing provides a strategic function as part of the UK motorway network and any enhancements here would not remove the need for enhancements in east London.

3.13. Impact of not changing

3.13.1. The levels of housing growth proposed for east London are dependent on there being supporting infrastructure to facilitate this growth. Without additional connectivity between east and southeast London in the form of new fixed river crossings, it is unlikely that the growth targets for a number of OAs would be met. The impacts of not changing are set out below

If cross-river connectivity levels are not improved, then employment opportunities would remain restricted, reducing the likelihood of outer east and southeast London being able to converge towards the higher productivity levels found in the rest of London

3.13.2. As outlined above, the river acts as a barrier to people’s job opportunities, with a noticeable difference in the number of jobs accessible from southeast London compared to other parts of the Capital. The reduced access to employment opportunities and business customers acts as a constraint on economic growth in east London.

3.13.3. In the future, the boroughs with the highest absolute increase in jobs lie north of the river and so the disparity between the amount and location of forecast population and employment growth will continue. If residents in boroughs south of the river have poor connections to the jobs north of the river, it restricts employment opportunities and

53

hinders the potential for regeneration in this area of London, which has, in parts, very high levels of deprivation.

The lack of cross-river highway connectivity would continue to act as a barrier to business development and as a consequence of this, GVA growth would be lower

3.13.4. As highlighted by the research undertaken by TfL, 65 per cent of firms surveyed considered that poor reliability of cross-river travel acts as a constraint on or disruption to their business. Additionally, a significant number of firms considered the river to be a barrier to the development of their business on the other side. Without improved cross-river connectivity in east London, the Thames will continue to be a barrier to business development.

3.13.5. Within London, the Thames Gateway area extends through Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering on the north side of River Thames and from Greenwich/ Charlton, to Belvedere/ Erith on the south side but many occupiers perceive these as two distinct sub-markets due to the separation caused by the river. Without connections that help join up the industrial locations north and south of the river, this distinction will continue and without a crossing, the opportunity to help to strengthen the higher value employment will be missed. This is likely to result in lower levels of GVA growth.

Opportunity Areas on the south side of the river in east London would continue to be poorly connected to employment opportunities on the north side of the river, reducing the attractiveness of these OAs as a place to live, potentially reducing the contribution they can make to delivery of new housing

3.13.6. London needs to build 49,000 new homes per year between 2015 and 2036 to accommodate the growing population and meet the backlog of need18. However, it is unlikely that all that development would be brought forward where land values are low and sites are not commercially viable.

3.13.7. East London is expected to accommodate around a third of London’s forecast population growth over the next twenty years, but if connectivity between east and southeast London remains poor and inhibits business development as well as limits residents’ employment and education opportunities, developers may invest less in the area resulting in housing being built to lower densities, which would mean that housing growth targets are less likely to be achieved. While much of the land in the area is zoned for housing, unless transport connectivity is improved, it is unlikely to be developed.

3.13.8. Overall, therefore, the impact of not changing the poor cross-river connectivity in east London would be to restrict people’s employment, education and leisure opportunities, deter development in the area and supress business activity. Combined, these impacts jeopardise the ability to meet strategic housing targets for London, which in turn would mean growth forecasts cannot be met.

18 Further Alterations to the London Plan, March 2015

54

PART C: SCHEME OBJECTIVES AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS

3.14. Objectives

3.14.1. To assess the schemes and ideas that have been generated either by TfL or others (for instance in response to consultation), objectives for the East of Silvertown project have been defined.

3.14.2. These objectives are based on Mayoral policy as set out in the London Plan and MTS (further detail on relevant policy is set out in Part F), information gathered from the assessment of needs (including the latest information on population growth) and responses to consultation.

3.15. River crossings programme objectives

3.15.1. The East of Silvertown project forms one element of the wider River Crossings programme. Objectives have been developed for the River Crossings programme that are aligned with the London Plan objectives for east London and the policies set out in Proposal 39 of the MTS19. These objectives are as follows:

• To improve the efficiency of the highway network in the London Thames Gateway, especially at river crossings, and provide greater resilience for all transport users

• To support the needs of existing businesses in the area and to encourage new business investment

• To support the provision of public transport services in the London Thames Gateway

• To integrate with local and strategic land use policies • To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on health, safety and the

environment • To ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key

stakeholders, including affected boroughs • To achieve value for money.

3.16. East of Silvertown project objectives

3.16.1. As set out above, the principal reasons for improving cross-river connectivity are to address issues concerning:

• Lack of connectivity between east and southeast London, which constrains development, restricts business to business activities and limits people’s job, leisure and education opportunities.

19 Greater London Authority: Mayor’s Transport Strategy, May 2010

55

• Poor transport network resilience and the requirement for long, indirect routes between locations on opposite sides of the river.

3.16.2. The objectives for the East of Silvertown project are based on the need to address these issues and based on a broad view of policy, the transport and economic context and the identified issues (as well as the overarching programme objectives set out above) the following project objectives have been adopted:

• to support population and employment growth; • to improve cross-river connectivity; and • to improve the resilience of cross-river transport links.

3.16.3. In addition to these objectives, which are described in more detail below, a successful crossing option or package of options would need to meet a number of other requirements arising principally from the River Crossings programme objectives referenced above and also from a range of other sources including the criteria defined in the London Plan (and echoed in the MTS) for assessing proposals for new roads (as described in Chapter 2), Department for Transport WebTAG guidance and as a result of discussions with stakeholders. These are:

• To minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on communities, health, safety and the environment

• To ensure, where possible, that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs

• To align with local and strategic land use policies • To achieve value for money and, through road user charging, to manage traffic.

3.16.4. Together, these objectives and requirements are consistent with the Mayoral objectives as set out in the MTS and the London Plan, and with the programme objectives and will be used to assess the river crossing options at locations east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel.

3.17. Definition of objectives

3.17.1. Supporting population and employment growth reflects the London Plan’s emphasis on enabling growth. The recent Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) is based on the latest data, and suggest a more rapid rate of population growth. The objectives for the crossings reflect this and the take account of themes that emerged from TfL’s public consultations on river crossings as outlined elsewhere in this document.

Definition of ‘cross-river connectivity’

3.17.2. Cross-river connectivity relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan. It refers in this context to:

• The opportunities for east and southeast London residents to access employment and local facilities, and of firms to hire labour and interact with other businesses and consumers, enabling a change to the accessibility of and connectivity between the areas either side of the river

56

• Any new crossing focussing primarily on catering for ‘local’ traffic, that is, traffic with either an origin and/or destination in one of the boroughs in the Study Area (Greenwich, Bexley, Newham, Barking and Dagenham and Havering). Clearly any crossing would be used to some degree by traffic outside of this area, but this should not be the majority of traffic attracted to using the crossing.

Definition of ‘cross-river transport network resilience’

3.17.3. Cross-river transport network resilience in this context also relates to the strategic objective for river crossings defined in the London Plan. It refers to:

• The number of crossings and the distance between them, impacting on the way that travel can be dispersed between crossings, reducing the journey lengths and time taken to cross the river

• The availability of these crossings to local traffic (including the movement of goods), public transport, cyclists and pedestrians throughout the day and week

• The susceptibility of crossings to closure and the ability of the cross-river transport network to cope with planned and unplanned events and incidents

• Long term crossing security, allowing long term investments in housing or business premises to be made with confidence

• The ability of the crossings to deal with different vehicle types or other operational constraints

• The capacity of these links and the demand to use them, and therefore the implications should full or partial closure of one or more crossings be necessary.

3.17.4. A resilient cross-river transport network, therefore, would consist of a number of different links, spaced regularly along the river, each of which is able to provide an acceptable level of service for all vehicle types and is not prone to unplanned closure.

3.18. Core project requirements

3.18.1. In order to meet the project objectives, a successful preferred crossing option developed in response to the MTS would also need to meet a number of other core project requirements.

3.18.2. The initial core project requirements for the East of Silvertown project are:

• Crossings to be generally available for use all day, every day, except for routine maintenance works;

• Dedicated public transport lanes to be included on both of the crossings – at a minimum bus lanes;

• Any new bridges to be accessible for pedestrians and cyclists and for this provision to link safely to local walking/cycling networks at each end;

• To provide efficient connections to the local distributor road network – Royal Docks Road and Western Way (for the Gallions Reach crossing) and Eastern Way/Bronze Age Way and Marsh Way/A13 junction (for the Belvedere crossing);

• To take account of known adjacent land-use and development proposals and minimise impacts on the surrounding network; and

57

• Road user charging to be implemented at the crossings to provide a tool to help maintain an appropriate mix and volume of traffic, as well as to provide a contribution to the cost of the crossings.

3.18.3. These requirements will continue to be refined as option development continues and a final list of requirements will be set out at a later date.

58

PART D: OPTION DEVELOPMENT

3.19. Introduction

A sifting process to narrow down a long list of 30 potential river crossing options has been carried out using multi-criteria analysis

3.19.1. To date, a broad range of options to address the needs set out above have been considered. As time has progressed, these lists of options has been reduced. Early work (for example, that which formed content of the July-September 2014 consultation) looked at fixed (i.e., bridge) and non-fixed (i.e., ferry) links at a number of locations including Woolwich and Gallions Reach.

3.19.2. Following the consultation in 2014, it was decided to progress fixed link options at Gallions Reach and Belvedere as these best met the objectives defined for the scheme. Since this point, and as a result of feedback received from the consultation, TfL has investigated the options further, considering bridge and tunnel options as well as a range of public transport concepts.

3.19.3. Firstly long lists of highway, active travel and public transport options were investigated. This is covered in the Option Assessment Report (Long List). The sifting process of the long-list of options was undertaken using TfL’s Strategic Assessment Framework (SAF) which is aligned with the DfT’s Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST). SAF is a multi-criteria assessment tool, which scores projects against a series of criteria relevant to a range of organisational goals and objectives.

3.19.4. Following this, another assessment of an interim list of public transport options was undertaken given the large number of options considered. This is covered in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List). It is through this work that the short list of public transport options that is presented in this document has been identified.

3.19.5. Following this consultation and further work on options appraisal, the public transport short list of feasible options will be considered alongside equivalent highway and active travel lists. The aim is then to identify the preferred multi-modal packages and a preferred solution identified and progressed.

3.19.6. Figure 3-19 outlines the stages that will be undertaken.

59

Figure 3-19 Assessment chart for the East of Silvertown project

3.19.7. The following sections summarise the sifting processes undertaken thus far.

3.20. Location

3.20.1. Large parts of the riverside in east London have constraints on one side or both, which would make the construction of a new river crossing unacceptable in terms of property or environmental impacts. In identifying suitable locations for the crossings, several factors need to be taken into account including property, environmental and river navigation impacts, access to the highway and public transport networks as well as existing town centre locations, infrastructure, safeguarded land and protected open space.

3.20.2. Assessments of existing and future land uses has identified two locations that would best help meet the objectives set out for the river crossings as well as tie-in with the existing transport networks in the area; these are at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham. This is discussed in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).

3.20.3. Crossings at these locations can help to ensure that the significant growth planned in the area can be supported by, for example, linking OAs on either side of the river as well help to improve network resilience in event of incidents at other crossings by ensuring the distance between crossings is reduced.

60

3.20.4. In order to ensure that these were the optimum locations, infrastructure options at Woolwich were also included in the Option Assessment Report (Long List), but ruled out.

3.21. Infrastructure options

3.21.1. There are five different infrastructure options that have been considered for the crossings:

• a high-level bridge; • an opening bridge; • a bored tunnel; • an immersed tunnel; and • a vehicle ferry.

3.21.2. The fixed infrastructure options are all assumed to be two lanes in each direction – one for general traffic and one for public transport.

3.21.3. The long-list of potential highway river crossings was considered in the Option Assessment Report (Long List). It concludes that high-level bridges and immersed tunnels are the most appropriate options to consider in further detail.

3.22. Public transport options

3.22.1. Consideration has been given to how public transport provision can be best integrated into the proposals for any new crossing. A long list of around 30 options was initially considered, which made use of either the Gallions Reach or Belvedere crossing, or both. Further options requiring a separate tunnel linking Barking and Abbey Wood were also considered for comparison.

3.22.2. The assessment of the long-list of options suggested that the case for a medium-capacity public transport link is weaker on the Belvedere crossing than on the Gallions Reach crossing, due to the much lower current and future population density in the surrounding areas and a lack of a clear passenger objective (such as a major interchange station or town centre) nearby. Further information on the public transport options considered at this stage is available in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).

3.22.3. Following this assessment, further work was undertaken to narrow the public transport options further. The work is set out in the Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List). The report concludes that the most appropriate options to take forward for further assessment are – bus network, a DLR extension from Gallions Reach station to Thamesmead, a DLR extension from Gallions Reach station north to Barking and south across the crossing to Abbey Wood (via Thamesmead) and a tram network serving Barking, Thamesmead, Woolwich and Abbey Wood, utilising the Gallions Reach crossing.

3.22.4. Plans for the public transport provision on the crossings at this time are largely indicative and will be subject to further assessment and consultation before a preferred option or options is identified.

61

3.23. Walking and cycling

3.23.1. As set out above, cross-river connectivity in east London is poor for all transport users, including pedestrians and cyclists and therefore there is a clear opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to be catered for alongside other modes on the East of Silvertown crossings at a much lower cost than a standalone facility.

3.23.2. However, providing such facilities in a tunnel is much more challenging – due to the need to separate these facilities from traffic, the costs would be significantly higher and the environment much less attractive for users compared to a bridge. In light of this, the benefits of provision for pedestrian and cycle facilities in a tunnel solution would need to outweigh the costs of doing so. Further work is required to determine if this would be the case.

3.23.3. Ultimately, TfL would incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities into any new crossing as part of the East of Silvertown project provided they can be accommodated in a manner that guarantees the safety and security of users, at a reasonable cost.

3.23.4. These facilities would link into local walk and cycle networks on either side of the crossing.

3.23.5. Consideration of incorporating pedestrian and cycle facilities on the crossings is discussed in the Option Assessment Report (Long List).

62

PART E: OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS

3.24. Introduction

Work to identify a preferred option for river crossings East of Silvertown is underway

3.24.1. As set out above, more consultation and work is required before a single preferred solution for the East of Silvertown project can be identified.

3.24.2. This work relates to a number of fundamental matters including what form the crossings should take (e.g. tunnel or bridge), which public transport option should be included and, if a tunnel is to be constructed at either or both of the locations, whether cycle and pedestrian provision should be made.

3.24.3. The project is at such a stage, where the assessments have resulted in a short list of highway and public transport options for the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings.

3.24.4. The highway short list concludes with crossing infrastructure options, which could be a high-level bridge at both locations, immersed tunnels at both locations or one of each at either location.

3.24.5. A charge would operate on both crossings – the exact price of which would be determined at a later date but would be intended to manage demand and maximise user benefits.

3.24.6. Both crossings would have cross-river bus routes serving them irrespective of any rail-based public transport option. There is potential for one of three rail-based public transport options to also be incorporated (at Gallions Reach).

3.24.7. The public transport options are as follows:

Table 3-2 Public transport options

Mode Origin/Destination

Bus only A network of new and extended routes between locations on either side of the river, utilising both crossings (indicative only at this stage)

Plus one of the following:

Short DLR Extension from existing Gallions Reach station to Thamesmead, utilising Gallions Reach crossing

Long DLR DLR between Barking and Abbey Wood via existing Gallions Reach station, utilising Gallions Reach crossing

Tram Tram from Barking to Abbey Wood and Woolwich, utilising Gallions Reach crossing

63

3.24.8. The crossings and potential destinations served by public transport services using the crossings are set out in Figure 3-20.

Figure 3-20 East of Silvertown crossing locations and potential public transport destinations

3.24.9. There are therefore a variety of combinations possible, depending on both the highway crossing infrastructure and the public transport mode. The combination of options is summarised in Table 3-3 on the following page.

64

Table 3-3 East of Silvertown river crossing options

Highway crossing Public transport Walk and cycle facilities

Gallions Reach bridge & Belvedere bridge

Bus only or

Short DLR + bus

or Long DLR + bus

or Tram + bus

Yes

Gallions Reach tunnel & Belvedere bridge

Bus only or

Short DLR + bus

or Long DLR + bus

or Tram + bus

To be determined at Gallions Reach

Yes at Belvedere

Gallions Reach bridge & Belvedere tunnel

Bus only or

Short DLR + bus

or Long DLR + bus

or Tram + bus

Yes at Gallions Reach

To be determined at Belvedere

Gallions Reach tunnel & Belvedere tunnel

Bus only or

Short DLR + bus

or Long DLR + bus

or Tram + bus

To be determined

3.24.10. The transport benefits delivered by a bridge or a tunnel are generally the same. For the purposes of the following section, bridges are assumed but tunnels at either location could be introduced without materially impacting on the benefits.

3.24.11. There are a number of other factors that need to be considered when looking at the option of bridges or tunnels; the areas needing further investigation to determine which option provides the most cost effective solution include:

• The land available for other uses

• The impact on the environment, including visual amenity

• The impact on surrounding property

• The capability of incorporating sustainable modes

3.24.12. Another factor that needs to be taken into account when considering bridge and tunnel options is the costs of meeting the requirements stipulated by London City Airport and Port of London Authority.

3.24.13. Once these areas have been investigated further and a greater understanding of the relative impacts of bridge and tunnel options at each location is made, a decision can be taken as to the most appropriate infrastructure solution.

3.24.14. More generally, the benefits of the various options in Table 3-3 are relatively similar and are presented in the following section. The differences between these benefits will be highlighted but not discussed in detail. Further detail on the comparison between the public transport options is presented in the Option Assessment Report: Interim list and the Public Transport Connectivity Analysis reports.

65

3.25. Summary of impact of the crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere

3.25.1. Option A assumes bridges at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, with cross-river bus routes using both crossings. It is referred to as ‘Do-Minimum’ as irrespective of the rail-based public transport options being considered, buses would be provided and therefore this scenario represents the base public transport provision.

3.25.2. In summary, this option would: • Increase the number of jobs, consumers, businesses and the workforce that could

be accessed to/from areas such as Thamesmead and North Bexley due to better connections.

• Improve journey times and journey time reliability for those who cross the river, this includes the vast majority of people who currently use the Woolwich Ferry as users would no longer need to queue to wait for the next ferry.

• Improve transport network resilience by providing alternative river crossing options in the event of planned or unplanned disruption at existing crossings.

• Transform cross-river bus provision in east London and provide a variety of new public transport links between housing, employment and key public transport interchanges.

• Provide improved access to the strategic road network for businesses in areas south of the river and join up SILs on either side of the river.

• Bring forward development that would otherwise not happen not only because of the transformed connectivity the crossings would deliver but also by giving confidence to inward investors that the public sector is prepared to invest for the long term.

• Provide the opportunity to deliver high quality sustainable mode connections, with the incorporation of cycling and walking facilities in to the bridge design.

• Have an adverse impact on the townscape in the immediate vicinity of the crossings, with the bridge structure being close to current and proposed housing, particularly at Gallions Reach.

• Once operational, likely to have localised traffic and air quality impacts that would require mitigation.

3.25.3. Option B comprises of Bus and Short DLR at Gallions Reach to link Thamesmead with the Gallions Reach DLR station on the north side of the river and onwards to Crossrail (interchange at Custom House). In summary, it would: • Deliver similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for the

Option A. • Tie Thamesmead into the DLR network, providing links from the area to the Royal

Docks, Stratford, Canary Wharf and the City, thereby adding the area to the TfL rail network helping to further improve the image of the area and encourage more development than Option A.

• Lead to a reduction in local traffic and emissions in adjacent areas compared to building a crossing without rail provision.

• Provide the opportunity to ensure the DLR is well-integrated into the urban fabric of areas such as Thamesmead as these undergo re-development.

• Offer less road use flexibility than Option A or tram options as the incorporation of DLR prevents this lane being used by any other mode.

66

3.25.4. Option C comprises Bus and Long DLR between Barking and Abbey Wood via the existing Gallions Reach station, utilising Gallions Reach crossing and, in summary, would: • Deliver similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for Options

A and B. • Increase the number of jobs accessible from some places compared to Option B. • Supports more housing than options A and B. • Addresses other non-crossing related gaps such as connectivity between Barking

and Royal Docks.

3.25.5. A Bus and Tram scheme (Option D) using the Gallions Reach crossing, would, in summary: • Deliver very similar benefits and have similar impacts as those out outlined for

Option C. • Runs at ground level and share road space with other vehicles, making it easier and

less expensive to create new links beyond the crossing itself, such as a link between Thamesmead and Woolwich.

• Offer the same level of road space flexibility as Option A, Bus only. • Provide the opportunity to ensure the tram is well-integrated into the urban fabric

of areas such as Thamesmead as these undergo re-development.

3.25.6. The following sections set out some of the quantified benefits of the East of Silvertown crossings

New river crossings in east London would deliver a step-change in highway and public transport cross-river connectivity

3.25.7. Under all shortlisted options, the crossings would deliver enhanced highway and public transport connectivity and improved transport network resilience.

3.25.8. These benefits would support growth by improving local firms’ access to markets, increasing the size of retail and leisure catchments and expanding residents’ access to employment opportunities. These tangible benefits mean places that are better connected are more attractive, both for businesses and as residential locations.

3.25.9. The improvements in the resilience and reliability of the transport network delivered by the crossings can be as important as improvements in connectivity, especially for many road based sectors. While this is difficult to measure accurately, it is an important consideration in terms of the wider beneficial impacts of the project.

3.25.10. New river crossings would facilitate faster and/or more direct journeys between locations north and south of the river, reducing trip length and vehicle kilometres driven for these trips.

3.25.11. Modelling suggests that there would be significant highway journey time savings for a variety of origin/destination pairs. For example, the would be a 39 minute saving for trips between Thamesmead and Barking in the AM peak and a 30 minute reduction between Belvedere and Royal Docks. The Traffic Impact Report sets out a range of journey time changes as a consequence of the crossings.

67

3.25.12. Meanwhile, in terms of job accessibility, the Travel Options Pie analysis, presented in Figure 3-21, sets out the number of jobs in London accessible within 45 minutes from Thamesmead without and with Option A, Bus only.

Figure 3-21 Travel Options Pie comparison of 2031 Reference Case and Option A – number of London jobs accessible within 45 minutes travel time of Thamesmead, AM peak, 2031

3.25.13. It clearly demonstrates how the introduction of the crossings overcomes the barrier

effect of the Thames in this area, significantly increasing the number of jobs accessible to residents of Thamesmead by both car and bus.

3.25.14. The substantial change in access to jobs and labour market brought about by the crossings is also evident from the below tables (Table 3-4 and Table 3-5), which demonstrate the actual and percentage change in access at a number of key locations in the Study Area and demonstrates that even in locations north of the river, which do

68

not feel the barrier effects of the Thames as much as those in the south, see increases as a result of the crossings.

Table 3-4 Change in number of jobs accessible within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins, highway, 2031 (000s)

Location 2031 Reference Case With crossings Difference Thamesmead 1,400 2,300 63% Belvedere 1,600 2,290 47% Barking Riverside 2,600 2,600 -1% Rainham 2,200 2,300 5%

Table 3-5 Change in number of workers accessible within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins, highway, 2031 (000s)

Location 2031 Reference Case With crossings Difference

Advanced Business Park 5,200 5,200 1% Barking 5,300 5,600 6% Belvedere Industrial Area 3,400 5,000 29%

3.25.15. The crossings would also deliver a step-change in cross-river public transport connections in outer east London and enable the provision of high-quality sustainable mode options.

3.25.16. Buses form the Do-Minimum public transport option for the crossings and while the exact routes would not be detailed until later, the crossings provide the opportunity to link places such as Barking, Beckton and the Royal Docks to Thamesmead, Woolwich and Abbey Wood and Dagenham, Rainham and Romford to Belvedere, Erith and Bexleyheath.

3.25.17. The specific type of bus infrastructure is also yet to be determined, but could involve dedicated busways.

3.25.18. Meanwhile, delivery of a rail-based public transport link via the Gallions Reach crossing (either DLR or tram) could improve public transport opportunities further as well as enhancing the perception of the area further by adding it to the TfL Tube map.

3.25.19. Currently, those living in some areas south of the river such as Thamesmead do not have direct access to the TfL Underground/rail network, and introducing a rail connection would transform the connectivity of this area.

3.25.20. Figure 3-22 illustrates the London Underground lines accessible with just one interchange if the Short DLR Option were to be introduced. This would mean that people using the DLR from there would, with one interchange, have access to seven different TfL rail lines including the Jubilee, District, Hammersmith and City and Central, Crossrail, DLR and sections of the London Overground (to Richmond and Clapham Junction).

69

Figure 3-22 Underground network accessible with one interchange (Option B)

3.25.21. The introduction of a rail-based public transport link would enhance the job accessibility benefits outlined in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 further. The table below sets out the number of jobs accessible from particular locations in the Study Area with the public transport options in place.

Table 3-6 Number of jobs within 75 mins generalised time from selected origins, 2031 (000s)

Origin area 2031 Reference

Case

Bus only (Option A)

Bus + Short DLR (Option

B)

Bus + Long DLR (Option

C)

Bus +Tram (Option D)

Thamesmead 60 134 159 154 131

Belvedere 49 63 63 63 67

Abbey Wood 783 788 788 838 810

Plumstead 197 214 214 214 217

Beckton 340 343 336 363 351

Gallions Reach 632 680 632 756 689

Barking Riverside 37 37 37 37 37

Beam Park 38 63 63 63 63

Rainham 41 51 51 51 51

3.25.22. Table 3-7 below sets out the change in labour market access as a consequence of the public transport elements (i.e., bus network, DLR and Tram options), showing the access for businesses to a much larger potential workforce as a result of the crossings.

70

Table 3-7 Number of workers within 75 mins generalised time from selected destinations (000s)

Origin area 2031 Reference

Case

Bus only (Option A)

Bus + Short DLR (Option

B)

Bus + Long DLR (Option

C)

Bus +Tram (Option D)

Advanced Business Park (Royal Docks) 746 785 785 894 811

Barking 943 965 965 973 1,027

Sustainable Industries Park 93 94 94 94 94

Beam Park 60 113 113 113 113

Woolwich 821 821 821 819 836

Abbey Wood 476 485 484 557 517

Belvedere Industrial Area 59 47 47 47 47

The expansion of economic activity facilitated by the new crossings would help enable significant development in the area.

3.25.23. The expansion of economic activity facilitated by the provision of new river crossings would help to enable the delivery of the significant development planned for the area. Improved river crossings would also enhance the image of the areas they connect and give confidence to investors that the public sector is prepared to invest for the long term.

3.25.24. It is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity delivered by the crossings could alone support to the delivery of at least 5,000 new homes and 3,000 new jobs (Option A). The resulting growth in homes is concentrated in the riverside OAs and their immediate hinterland.

3.25.25. The growth in jobs is split between central London, which benefits from a marginal improvement in access to the labour market, and local jobs in areas of population growth. More detail on the approach used to generate these estimates of housing and employment impacts arising from the two new river crossings is set out within the Economic Case.

Further detailed traffic modelling will take place 3.25.26. All shortlisted highway options are likely to have an impact on the road network, with

the strategic modelling undertaken thus far indicating that an increase in delay is likely at some locations, with reductions at others.

3.25.27. More detailed traffic modelling will be undertaken once the design of the crossings has progressed but Figure 3-23 below gives an indication of the possible locations of change in junction delay.

71

Figure 3-23 Junction delay changes as a result of the proposed East of Silvertown crossings, AM peak hour (08.00-09.00)

3.25.28. The Traffic Impact Report provides more detail on the high-level traffic impacts of the

East of Silvertown crossings.

3.26. The role of road user charging

TfL is proposing to charge for the use of the East of Silvertown river crossings both to manage demand and to help pay for the new crossings

3.26.1. TfL would use charging as a way to manage demand and therefore levels of traffic using the crossing. This would help TfL manage overall traffic levels to within acceptable limits and support its wider objectives.

3.26.2. While the provision of additional connectivity is fundamental to addressing the problems in east and southeast London, the absence of charging to manage demand would mean that the benefits would in all likelihood be short-lived. As journey times improve with the introduction of the crossings, new demand attracted from the network would at some point take up the additional capacity up to a level where the approach roads (both north and southbound) would reach capacity. At this point, congestion on the road network surrounding the crossing would increase, offsetting the benefits of the scheme.

3.26.3. TfL would also use revenue generated by the user charging scheme to help to fund the delivery of the new river crossings infrastructure. While no decision has been made on how the East of Silvertown project would be funded, it is possible that, as with the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, TfL may propose to enter into an agreement with a private sector party for the design, construction, finance and maintenance of the works

72

comprised in the project. While the costs of the scheme would be met by TfL, revenue collected from charging the crossings would over time be used to balance out any impact this has on TfL’s overall budget.

3.26.4. User charging revenue is therefore likely to be a key component of the financial arrangements for the East of Silvertown project, however, further analysis is required before any decisions can be made about the precise level of the charge, and therefore the exact financial arrangements that would be made to fund the scheme.

3.27. Constraints

There are some constraints that may have a bearing on the type of crossing at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham.

3.27.1. At this stage of the optioneering process, a high-level assessment of constraints that are likely to arise has been carried out. These are summarised in Table 3-8 below. Once a preferred option has been identified, Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) workshops will be undertaken to specify the project constraints.

Table 3-8 Potential constraints Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation Navigational channel

Physical/ environmental

The right of shipping that exists along the stretch of the River Thames where the two crossings are proposed, including large vessels.

Design of: i) A tunnel so that no interaction exists between the crossing and the navigational channel; or ii) A bridge to be over a certain height to allow ships to pass underneath i. e. a high-level bridge with an air draft of around 50 metres across the navigational channel; or iii) An opening bridge.

Existing road network

Physical The crossings must tie in appropriately to the existing road network and not cause unacceptable disruption to existing land use.

Logical points of connection to the existing highway network and routes which can accommodate a 5% gradient in order to tie into the junctions at ground level at either end will be selected.

73

Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation London City Airport

Physical/ environmental

As a result of the proximity of Gallions Reach crossing alignments to London City Airport, the Flight Protection Surface needs to be considered for the height and design of bridge, should that be taken forward. This is a safety zone intended to offer an adequate margin, including anticipated lateral deviations, during the climb out phase of missed approach and emergency procedures.

A concrete box girder bridge design has been developed, since the required aviation clearance rules out a cable stayed or arched solution.

Existing stations such as the DLR station at Gallions Reach

Physical The proposed public transport link would need to be accommodated within the existing network.

Any interchange would be carefully designed to ensure optimum operation and station design, with designated bus slips etc.

Existing houses/ residential area

Planning The river crossings may have an impact (visual and noise) on existing residential property and community assets or infrastructure, and planned residential development.

Ensure the crossings are as far away as possible from the existing residential units, taking into account other constraints. Consideration of noise mitigation e.g., track lubrication, noise barrier, etc.

Proposed Masterplans in Study Area

Planning A number of masterplans exist in the Study Area with committed and proposed developments outlined.

Ensure the proposals adhere to development already outlined in existing masterplans. The options proposed at Gallions Reach can be contained within the safeguarded area of land. No land is safeguarded for a crossing at Belvedere and further work would be required to identify the land requirements for a link at this location.

74

Constraint Type of constraint Description/issue Potential mitigation Crossing locations are restrained by existing land uses

Planning Large parts of the riverside in east London have constraints on one side, or the other, or both, which would make the construction of a new river crossing unacceptable in terms of property or environmental impacts.

Essential infrastructure, including sewage works, safeguarded land, committed developments, protected open space, wharves, and existing residential and industrial land have been mapped and factored in to crossing alignment considerations.

3.28. Inter-dependencies

3.28.1. There are a number of dependencies with other projects and work streams that may affect the timely delivery of East of Silvertown crossings. These include:

• The continued safeguarding of the route has been identified as an external dependency for the delivery of the Gallions Reach crossing.

• The legal requirement that TfL operate the Woolwich Ferry. A road link at Gallions Reach would be likely to negate the need to continue to run the ferry at Woolwich. In the event that TfL formally proposed the introduction of a road crossing at Gallions Reach, TfL would address the question of whether to continue to operate the ferry service at Woolwich and identify the steps required to address the legal obligation.

• The interaction with the existing DLR network if a DLR option is taken forward. • The interaction with the existing road network.

3.28.2. Note however that, given the stage the option development that the East of Silvertown project is at, this list of inter-dependencies is only indicative and will evolve and be refined as the work progresses.

75

PART F: TRAVEL PATTERNS IN EAST LONDON AND STRATEGIC POLICY CONTEXT

3.29. Introduction

3.29.1. In this section current and future travel patterns will be summarised and it will be demonstrated how existing national, regional and local policies give general and specific support for the East of Silvertown river crossing proposals to address strategic and local needs, notably population and employment growth, improvement in connectivity and enhanced resilience. A number of the national and regional policy documents also contain ‘criteria’ that will be taken into account in the assessment of the East of Silvertown project.

3.30. Current travel behaviour in east London and comparisons of levels of cross-river trips in west and east London

40% of commuting trips in east London make use of the road network 3.30.1. Travel to work mode shares within the five Study Area boroughs (Barking and

Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Havering and Newham), show that commuting by road; whether by car, van, bus, coach, taxi or motorbike, is important for many people and accounts for around 40 per cent of all journey to work trips. The proportion of commuting by road based modes is highest in the outer boroughs of Bexley, Barking and Dagenham and Havering (with road-based mode shares of 64% to 71%).

3.30.2. While there will be increasing opportunity for mode shift to rail in parts of the Study Area once Crossrail opens, road transport will continue to play a significant part in travel in east London. Table 3-9 shows how road based vehicle use has been rising (by over 40,000 trips between 2001 and 2011) due to population and employment growth, although the mode share is decreasing.

76

Table 3-9 Change 2001-2011 of borough residents using road-based method of travel to work20

Resident borough

2001 road use 2011 road use Change (000s / %) Number

(000s) Share (%) Number

(000s) Share (%)

Newham 45 (56%) 59 (46%) +15 (-10%) Greenwich 56 (65%) 66 (59%) +11 (-7%) Bexley 70 (73%) 75 (71%) +5 (-2%) Havering 70 (72%) 77 (71%) +7 (-1%) Barking and Dagenham

44 (71%) 47 (64%) +3 (-7%)

Totals 321 382 +41 (13%)

The absolute number of residents commuting to work by car has increased by 13% in the ten years to 2011

3.30.3. The proportion of residents using a road-based vehicle to travel to work has reduced in all five of the Study Area boroughs, indicating the impact of considerable investment in rail infrastructure. While the share of commuting taking place by road based modes has fallen, the absolute number of residents commuting by road has risen in all boroughs, by a total of 13 per cent, as a result of population and employment growth.

3.30.4. Table 3-10 shows the overall mode share for personal travel by residents in the boroughs in the Study Area and compares these to inner London, outer London and London as a whole (this excludes freight and non-resident travel). While other modes are important, road-based travel (including bus, car, taxi and cycle – but excluding walking) accounts for more than two thirds of all travel in four out of the five boroughs. The exception is Newham, where it accounts for 48 per cent.

3.30.5. While road-based mode share is expected to decrease over time, it is clear that, given this dominance of road-based travel and the growth of population and employment expected in east London, a significant proportion of highway travel is inevitable.

20 http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk – 2001 census dataset UV39 – 2011 census dataset QS701EW. All figures rounded to nearest 100

77

Table 3-10 Study Area trips by borough of origin, trips per day and shares by main mode, average day (7-day week) 2011/12 to 2013/1421

Area Trips (000s)

Rail Under-ground/ DLR

Bus/ tram

Taxi/ Other

Car/ motor-cycle

Cycle Walk

Newham 715 3% 11% 19% 1% 27% 1% 38%

Barking & Dagenham

330 3% 5% 17% 1% 44% 3% 29%

Bexley 476 4% 0% 10% 1% 60% 1% 24%

Greenwich 581 5% 3% 16% 1% 44% 25 28%

Havering 477 4% 2% 11% 0% 60% 1% 22%

Inner London

8,761 6% 13% 17% 2% 21% 4% 38%

Outer London

10,407 4% 4% 13% 1% 49% 2% 28%

All London 19,168 5% 8% 15% 1% 36% 3% 32%

Cross-river connectivity in west London is significantly better than in east London. Residents of west London undertake ten times as many cross-river trips than by residents of east London

3.30.6. An analysis of the latest (2011) London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) has been undertaken to examine the extent of existing cross-river personal travel by residents in east London22, and so as to enable a comparison of both inter- and intra-borough trips to those in west London23.

3.30.7. The patterns identified are obviously affected by existing and historic land use patterns as well as the prevalence of crossings, but it gives an indication of the level of cross-river travel that can result from the availability of crossings which in turn influences land use. Table 3-11 shows that, relatively, cross-river trips represent a small proportion of all resident-based personal trips: some 6.4 per cent in east London and 10.8 per cent in west London, including those in central London. However, the overall volume of daily trips is still high: 322,500 in east London and 566,400 in west London.

21 Borough Local Implementation Plan (LIP) performance indicators, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/borough-lip-performance-indicators.pdf - personal trips only 22 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011 23 It should be noted that this data excludes all non-resident travel in the area including freight, which constitutes a significant proportion of cross-river highway travel as described previously.

78

West London therefore has some 70 per cent more total cross-river trips compared to east London.

Table 3-11 Summary of all inter and intra-borough trips in Study Area and west London24

East London West London Trips (000s)

% Trips (000s)

%

Entirely north 2,751 55% 2,882 55% Entirely south 1,962 39% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 160 3% 285 5% South-north crossing 163 3% 282 5% Total cross-river 323 6% 566 11% Total 5,036 100% 5,241 100%

3.30.8. However when trips into central London are excluded (see Table 3-12 below), cross-river trips in east London total decrease to 33,900, or just 0. 6 per cent of all trips that originate in or are destined for this part of London. This compares with 313,700 trips that cross the river in west London – 10 times the east London figure, and a clear demonstration of the effect of the difference in cross-river connectivity between the two locations.

Table 3-12 Comparison of all inter and intra-borough trips in east London and westLondon – excluding central London (Average daily trips 2005 – 2011)

East London West London Trips (000s) % Trips (000s) %

Entirely north 1,544 31% 1,831 35% Entirely south 1,582 31% 1,793 34% North-south crossing 17 <1% 151 3% South-north crossing 17 <1% 163 3% Total cross-river 34 <1% 314 6% Total 3,160 63% 3,937 75%

3.30.9. The analysis also shows that current cross-river trips in east London are overwhelmingly made by public transport, with car trips as a proportion of all cross-river trips standing at just 2 per cent25.

3.30.10. This reflects the good availability of cross-river public transport options within inner east London and the general lack of road-based crossings. Cross-river trips that

24 For this purpose, east London boroughs were defined as Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham, and west London boroughs were Richmond and Kingston on Thames, Merton , Hounslow, Ealing, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth. Central London included Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, the City of London, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Westminster. 25 East London River Crossings – LTDS Analysis Note, TfL – data used for 2005 to 2011

79

exclude central London are much more likely to be made by Underground or the DLR than other modes, given the current availability of the public transport network in the Study Area. Trips into central London are much more likely to take place by National Rail (including Overground) given the availability of radial National Rail routes.

3.31. Forecast future travel patterns

Absolute numbers of car and freight trips in east London are forecast to grow – resulting in an 18% increase in vehicle delays by 2041

3.31.1. Two important trends in future transport needs have been identified. Firstly, the numbers travelling by private vehicle is forecast to continue growing due to population growth (despite car mode share decreasing across London, particularly inner London) in line with MTS mode shift objectives. Secondly, demand for freight movement in London is expected to continue to increase over the medium to long term as will the trend in the use of smaller vans for servicing and delivery.

3.31.2. Table 3-13 shows the number of morning peak trips in the Study Area boroughs. The definition of car trips includes those driving a car or van and those travelling as passengers. The definition of public transport (PT) trips includes travel by bus, DLR, Underground and National Rail (including Overground). The mode share proportions refer to share of travel excluding active travel modes.

Table 3-13 Morning peak trips (and mode share) 2011 and 2031 Reference Case

Study Area borough

2011 2031

Car PT Car PT

Barking and Dagenham

63,500 (61%) 40,900 (39%) 70,600 (54%) 60,800 (46%)

Bexley 98,700 (68%) 45,700 (32%) 96,200 (64%) 53,700 (36%)

Greenwich 84,300 (53%) 73,500 (47%) 96,900 (45%) 116,300 (55%)

Havering 97,000 (67%) 47,300 (33%) 101,500 (61%) 65,600 (39%)

Newham 67,400 (37%) 114,700 (63%) 79,400 (31%) 173,600 (69%)

3.31.3. The forecasts suggest that the total volume of travel will continue to rise in line with increases in the number of residents and jobs in east and southeast London. Between 2011 and 2031, the rise in public transport trips is forecast to be greater than car trips due to the ongoing improvements in public transport connectivity and capacity.

3.31.4. The data demonstrates that despite the forecast mode shift from car to public transport trips in the east and southeast sub-region, there is still predicted to be an increase in car and other road-based trips (e.g., freight) arising from the population increases forecast, and already being realised, in the area.

3.31.5. This increase in the absolute number of trips will have an impact on the road network and journey times with an expected 18 per cent increase in delay per kilometre travelled across the east sub-region – the highest increase of all sub-regions (as Figure 3-24 below shows).

80

Figure 3-24 Forecast change in vehicle delays per km by sub-region, 2011-2041

3.31.6. Figure 3-25 illustrates this forecast increase in trip demand in the period to 2041, with

the modal share for public transport increasing across all boroughs, but with a larger number of actual car trips due to the higher volume of population and therefore trip volumes overall.

81

Figure 3-25 Estimated mode split and trip volume changes 2011-2041

3.32. National policy context

3.32.1. The Department for Transport’s nine priorities for the transport network are:

1. continuing to develop and lead the preparations for a high speed rail network

2. improving the existing rail network and creating new capacity to improve services for passengers

3. tackling congestion on our roads

4. continuing to improve road safety

5. encouraging sustainable local travel

6. promoting lower carbon transport, such as walking and cycling as well as introducing more environmentally-friendly buses and trains

7. supporting the development of the market for electric and other ultra-low emission vehicles

8. supporting the development of aviation, improving passenger experience at airports

9. maintaining high standards of safety and security for passengers and freight.

3.32.2. The proposal for river crossings at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham could contribute towards priorities 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

3.32.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in 2010 sets out a policy framework for how the land-use planning system should function.

82

3.32.4. The NPPF seeks to secure economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and a competitive economy and so significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.

3.32.5. The National Policy Statement for the National Road and Rail Networks published in December 2014 states “Well-connected and high-performing networks with sufficient capacity are vital to meet the country’s long-term needs and support a prosperous economy”26. It also states that “Improved and new transport links can facilitate economic growth by bringing businesses closer to their workers, their markets and each other.” By inference the lack of such connections and capacity is a major barrier to economic growth.

3.33. Regional and sub-regional policy context

3.33.1. Within London, a number of key strategic planning documents are integrated at the regional level. The MTS and London Housing Strategy have been developed so as to be consistent with each other and integrated.

The London Plan recognises that in order to achieve London’s growth ambitions, investment in infrastructure, including roads infrastructure and improved cross-river connectivity, will be required

3.33.2. The London Plan, first published in 2011, is the statutory spatial plan for London, providing the overall strategic plan for the Capital, setting out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20–25 years. It considers the strategic issues arising from the scale of growth that London would need to accommodate over the next two decades, and considers alternative spatial development policies that could be adopted to meet the forecasts for population and employment growth.

3.33.3. The conclusion is that east London – with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield land, OAs and improving transport links – should play a major role in London’s growth and that with further investment in infrastructure, many of London’s new jobs and homes can be accommodated in the east and southeast sub-region. This sub-region is projected to increase by 650,000 people with 286,000 more jobs by 2036, which is nearly a third of London’s projected growth overall. However, it is recognised that achieving this growth is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road infrastructure and improved cross-river connectivity.

3.33.4. A number of policies and statements in the London Plan refer directly to the need for further east London river crossings:

26 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387222/npsnn-print.pdf page 9

83

• Policy 6. 1 (Strategic Approach) discusses the need for more crossings and the Mayor’s approach

• Paragraph 6. 20 states that these new and enhanced river crossings are aimed at improving accessibility and the resilience of local transport networks, supporting economic growth in the area and linking local communities, and include:

• consideration of ferry-based options east of a crossing at Silvertown; and • consideration over the longer-term of a fixed link at Gallions Reach

• Paragraph 6. 41 highlights the need for additional road-based river crossings to address resilience and congestion issues at existing crossings and to support a growing economy in east London

• Policy 6. 12 (Road Network Capacity) states that the Mayor supports the need for limited improvements to London’s road network to ‘address clearly identified significant strategic or local needs’, and sets out the criteria (Policy 6. 12B) that should be taken into account when assessing these proposals.

River crossings would help support the goals of the London’s Housing Strategy (increase delivery of new housing) and the Mayor’s Economic Strategy (regeneration)

3.33.5. The London Housing Strategy, which was formally adopted in October 2014, sets out that London needs to nearly double the rate of house-building and build a minimum of 42,000 new homes a year, every year, for the next 20 years’. This requires a level of house building unseen in the capital since the 1930s, and can only be achieved by the various parties – the boroughs, the government, the Mayor, the private sector and the public sector – working together towards a common goal.

3.33.6. The strategy emphasises the importance of bringing forward land for development, particularly the OAs. If all the OAs were developed to their full potential over the next ten years, it would represent nearly seventy percent of the 420,000 new homes needed in London over the coming decade. Barking Riverside is part of the London Riverside Opportunity Area, and is identified in the strategy as London’s largest brownfield regeneration project, and a twenty first century garden suburb.

3.33.7. The conclusion is that east London, with its large areas of ex-industrial brownfield land and high potential for growth, should play a major role in London’s growth and that with investment in infrastructure, many of London’s new jobs and homes can be accommodated in the east and southeast sub-region. This sub-region is projected to increase by 600,000 people with 160,000 more jobs by 2031, which is nearly a third of London’s projected growth overall.27 However, it is recognised that achieving this growth is likely to require investment in infrastructure, including road infrastructure, and improvements in public realm and connectivity.

3.33.8. The Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS) emphasises (in para 5. 9) how ‘east London will continue to be a particular spatial priority, to ensure existing

27 East and South East London Sub Regional Transport Plan, 2014

84

development and regeneration needs are met and in particular to promote greater convergence of social and economic chances with the rest of the capital’.

The need for new river crossings is set out within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and other Mayoral documents

3.33.9. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) was developed in tandem with the London Plan and was published in 2010 following wide consultation. The MTS sets out the transport strategy for London up to 2031 including the strategy for delivering the transport infrastructure needed to facilitate growth in the east and southeast sub-region, a key part of the London Plan’s strategic vision. It contains proposals reflecting the London Plan policies and sets out in section 5.8 the strategic need and case for improving river crossings in east London, and Proposal 39 specifically references a new crossing east of Silvertown. In Proposal 130, the MTS notes that charges or tolls to support specific infrastructure improvements, such as river crossings, may be considered.

3.33.10. The sub-regional transport plan (SRTP) for east and southeast London, updated in 2014, lists the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings as a proposal that will improve connectivity in east and southeast London.

3.33.11. The London Infrastructure Plan28 sets out the Mayor’s long-term aspirations (to 2050) for the infrastructure to support London’s future growth. The central projection is a 37 per cent increase in population from 2011 to 2050, with a resident population of 11.3 million by mid-century. It notes that the road network caters for 80 per cent of people’s journeys and 90 per cent of freight journeys; and it is vital for the continued economic success and functioning of the city.

3.33.12. The Plan includes proposals for a series of new river crossings in east London beyond the proposed Silvertown Tunnel to overcome the major barrier effect which constrains travel between Thamesmead, Belvedere, Barking Riverside and Rainham.

The need for new river crossings is supported within the Roads Task Force report

3.33.13. Supplementary to the policies and strategies set out in the MTS, is the report of the Roads Task Force (RTF). This is an independent body which brought together a wide range of interests and expertise to consider the strategic needs of the road network across London. The RTF report, published in July 2013, sets out a vision of how London can cope with major population growth, and remain one of the most vibrant, accessible and attractive world cities. It highlights as presented in the Figure below ‘inadequate cross Thames connectivity and capacity’ as a key connectivity issue that inhibits growth and regeneration in east and southeast London.

28 The London Infrastructure Plan, GLA, 2014

85

Figure 3-26 Roads Task Force - Connectivity issues for London’s growth areas

Better cross-river connectivity would help meet the TfL Surface Transport Plan outcomes

3.33.14. The Surface Transport Plan sets out how TfL will manage those transport networks that utilise the highway network. This encompasses TfL’s bus, taxi, coach and river networks, freight deliveries, the Santander cycle hire, Congestion Charge and Low Emission Zone schemes and the approach towards the management of the TfL Road Network (TLRN). New river crossings would form part of the TLRN and would affect corridors within outer east London.

3.33.15. The Plan sets out a goal: ‘to keep London working, growing and to make life in London better’. Alongside this goal, the Plan has an ambition: ‘to provide, manage and improve the services, streets and places that connect London for all, sustaining its position as a world leading city’. The Plan has identified ten outcomes for surface transport in London, set out overleaf.

86

Table 3-14 Surface Outcomes Surface Outcome 1. Quality bus network: Maintaining and enhancing a reliable, safe, accessible bus network and supporting coach operations, across all of London. 2. Reliable roads:

Ensuring a reliable and resilient road network for all of London by managing congestion and improving connectivity. 3. Improving the environment:

Continuing to deliver environmental improvements, by reducing pollutants from ground based transport and enhancing the natural environment. 4. More and safer cycling:

Enabling more people to cycle, more safely, more often. 5. Better places to walk:

Creating and supporting safe attractive, accessible streets and places that people can use, enjoy and choose to walk more.

6. Reduced casualties: Continuing the downward trend in casualties on London’s roads and public transport networks 7. Sustainable freight:

Enabling safer, cleaner and more efficient delivery and servicing activity to support London’s economy. 8. Quality door-to-door transport:

Supporting provision of safe, reliable, accessible door-to-door services, including regulating London taxi and private hire services and operating Dial-a-Ride services. 9. Reduced crime:

Continuing the downward trend in crime, antisocial behaviour and fear of crime on London’s transport networks. 10. Realising rivers’ potential: Harnessing the potential of London’s rivers and waterways to carry people and goods.

3.33.16. The river crossings would contribute directly to the delivery of Outcomes 1, 2 and 7, and the depending on the option selected, may support Outcomes 4 and 5.

The new crossings East of Silvertown would serve three Housing Zones and improve highway access to and from Strategic Industrial Locations

3.33.17. The Mayors’ Housing Strategy, formally adopted in October 2014, aims to address the linked challenges of funding, land availability and development capacity that must be addressed to achieve the targets on increasing the supply of housing. It puts forward the proposal for Housing Zones – an initiative to accelerate housing delivery in areas with high development potential. Three of the areas identified as Housing Zones would be directly served by the East of Silvertown river crossings, these are: • Abbey Wood, Plumstead and Thamesmead (RB Greenwich) • Abbey Wood and Thamesmead (LB Bexley) and • Rainham and Beam Park (LB Havering)

87

3.33.18. River crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere would serve a number of London’s SILs. These SILs are “designated …. , as London’s main reservoirs of industrial and related capacity, including general and light industrial uses, logistics, waste management and environmental industries (such as renewable energy generation), utilities, wholesale markets and some transport functions”29.

3.33.19. These are the sites which are reserved for the critical functions of servicing London’s growing economy by providing the necessary industrial and logistical services to keep it functioning and good road accessibility is vital to these activities. As Figure 3-27 demonstrates, there is a cluster of SILs either side of the Thames in east London and the efficient operation of these sites is key to economic development of this area.

Figure 3-27 London Strategic Industrial Locations

3.33.20. London’s industrial / warehouse market comprises a number of sub-markets which vary in their degree of self-containment and relationship to one another. Several also extend beyond London’s boundaries. Figure 3-28 illustrates the extent of SIL land and shows how these can be grouped into a number of broad PMAs. Two of these industrial PMAs: Thames Gateway and the Lea Valley intersect near the Thames in east London.

29 Policy 2.17

88

3.33.21. The Industrial and Warehousing Demand Benchmarks study highlighted the significance of the east sub-region in terms of accommodating demand for larger units (i.e., 10,000 m2 and over). Between 2006 and the first half of 2011 inclusive, the east sub-region accounted for just under half of all floorspace taken-up for occupation in units of 10,000 m2 and over across London.

Figure 3-28 Industrial and logistics Property Market Areas

Source: Industrial Land Demand and Release Benchmarks in London

3.34. Local policy context

There is significant support for new river crossings from boroughs 3.34.1. References to east London river crossings in local planning documents and transport

policy from London local authorities are summarised in Table 3-15. There is significant support for addressing the lack of cross-river connectivity in east London from the local boroughs and many other adjacent boroughs, subject to various concerns over local impact.

89

Table 3-15 Local policy context summary

Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan

East of Silvertown boroughs

LB Barking and Dagenham

Policy CM4: ‘Transport Links’ states that ‘land will be safeguarded for transport infrastructure schemes that could be implemented within the lifetime of the Plan’ and that the Council would continue to press for and support the transport infrastructure improvement projects including a Docklands Light Railway (DLR) extension, a river crossing at Galleon’s Reach, the expansion of East London Transit, a Barking to Royal Docks Bus Corridor and an improved transport interchange at Dagenham Dock. In paragraph 4. 4. 7, support for the previously proposed Thames Gateway Bridge is expressed. The concept of a river crossing at this location is described as ‘a vital link between the north and south banks of the Thames’ and ‘an opportunity [ ] to create a Thames Gateway Transit System’.

LB Bexley Support for improvements to ease congestion, improve connectivity and enhance resilience at Blackwall. Support new river crossings providing local traffic flows not increased (para 4. 7. 12)30.

The Council ‘supports, in principle, a crossing at Silvertown, and is generally supportive of a further crossing east of Silvertown, but in an appropriate location. In this context, the Council is seeking crossing locations that bring real regeneration to the area while protecting the environment and residential amenity and avoiding congestion on the local road

30 LB Bexley: Bexley Core Strategy, February 2012

90

Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan network’ (para. 2. 50).

RB Greenwich Policy IM3 on Critical Physical Infrastructure states that Greenwich will ‘advocate and work in partnership with relevant agencies to deliver a new package of Thames river crossings in east London, including the continued safeguarding of the Silvertown Link Tunnel and the Gallions Reach Crossing’.

Furthermore, Policy IM3 also states that Greenwich will ‘support the intensification of the use of the river for transport of people and freight, including upgrades to the Woolwich Ferry service’.

The supporting statement (para. 4. 8. 17) clarifies this position in terms of prioritisation of a river crossings package: ‘It is recognised that there is a need to improve cross-river links. A package of measures that can help to deliver this improvement is supported, although the exact nature of these is yet to be determined. Any new crossings should ensure that they are fully integrated for use with public transport, walking and cycling. A cable car for pedestrians and cyclists has improved access by these means. Although the development of fixed river crossings remain the Royal Borough's priority, in the shorter term support will also be given to cross-river ferry services, which can provide improved connectivity at a lower cost than a fixed crossing’.

Greenwich continues to safeguard the required land for Gallions Reach crossing (para. 4.

Second Local Implementation Plan (LIP) discusses river crossings in Section 3 and gives support in principle to ‘a vehicle tunnel from the A102 on Greenwich Peninsula to Silvertown’.

91

Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan 8. 18).

LB Havering Commitment to working with relevant authorities to secure provision of the Thames Gateway Bridge (section 1. 3)31.

Notes road freight congestion challenges caused by severance and few river crossings (section 2. 5)32.

LB Newham It states that ‘The Council supports the development of bridge, tunnel or ferry crossings at these locations [Gallions Reach and Silvertown] to provide resilience to the Blackwall Tunnel and to support future growth’ (6. 197).

The LIP sets out the Council’s support for strategic transport proposals that will contribute towards Newham’s regeneration and economic and physical development.

Adjoining boroughs and other relevant local authorities

LB Hackney It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown, however, in its response to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014, Hackney is generally supportive of the Gallions Reach bridge as long as it is a multi-modal crossing and traffic demand is managed to mitigate the impact on residents of adjoining boroughs.

References ‘east London SRTP (2010)’ including need to reduce physical barriers including River Thames and improving resilience (para 3. 2. 14)33.

LB Lewisham It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown and but in its response to the 2014 east of Silvertown consultation, the borough stated that it supports the principle of increasing capacity across the river to unlock economic potential in the southeast region of London and that careful consideration of traffic, environmental and economic impacts is required.

31 LB Havering: Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document, 2008 32 LB Havering: Local Implementation Plan, December 2011 33 LB Hackney: Hackney Local Implementation Plan 2 2011/12 - 2013/14, October 2011

92

Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan

LB Redbridge It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown, however in its response to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014, Redbridge supports further examination of the Gallions Reach Ferry, the Gallions Reach Bridge and the Belvedere Bridge options. The Borough expresses concern about potential impacts on the strategic network in adjoining boroughs, notably the A406.

LB Southwark It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown and the Borough did not respond to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014.

Thurrock Council It makes no specific reference to river crossings in east London. In its response to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014, Thurrock Council recognises that the Belvedere Bridge could be supported in principle, but expresses concern about the potential traffic impacts on the M25 junction 30/31.

LB Tower Hamlets

It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown, however, in its response to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014, Tower Hamlets affirmed its support for the proposed bridges, in particular for the Gallions Bridge to be developed in parallel with the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. The Borough is strongly supportive of future proof, multi-modal fixed links.

The Council’s second LIP sets out the Council’s support for improving the provision of river crossings to relieve pressure on the borough’s road network, particularly the Blackwall Tunnel (page 38).

93

Local authority Core Strategy LIP/Local Transport Plan

LB Waltham Forrest

It makes no reference to river crossings to the east of Silvertown and the Borough did not respond to the TfL consultation on crossings to the east of Silvertown in summer 2014.

3.35. Internal drivers of change

The Woolwich Ferry

3.35.1. The Woolwich Ferry is approaching the end of its useful life as a ‘local’ crossing, and decisions need to be made on its future. The vessels and other infrastructure have a finite life, and a decision will need to be made around further extending the life of the current facility, building a new improved ferry, or withdrawing the service. Investigations are therefore being undertaken to determine if other crossing options meet the needs identified and are better value for money.

3.36. External drivers of change

3.36.1. The boroughs in the Study Area have all identified the need for improved cross-river connections between east and southeast London and the specific policy documents which set this out are described above in the local policy context.

3.36.2. The issues associated with a lack of cross-river connectivity have also been recognised by a range of stakeholders, with groups such as the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, London First, Freight Transport Association and London City Airport, calling for additional crossings to support growth and enable regeneration in the area.

3.36.3. London First, for example, says:

“Congestion and poor connectivity continue to hold back housing and employment opportunity in east London. The distance between Abbey Wood and Beckton is 5km as the crow flies, yet takes 45 minutes by road. New river crossings will transform journey times and open up housing and employment opportunities on both sides of the Thames.”

3.37. Strategic policy context conclusion

3.37.1. Existing national, regional and local policies thus give both general and specific support to new river crossings in east London, to address strategic and local needs for enhanced cross-river connectivity and to relieve congestion and improve resilience. A number of the national and regional policy documents contain ‘criteria’ that will be taken into account in the assessment of new river crossings east of Silvertown, while local planning documents also set out some concerns about local impacts.

94

4. The Economic Case

4.1. Introduction

DfT transport appraisal guidance (WebTAG) and HMT Green Book guidance has been followed in the economic appraisal of the four shortlisted options

4.1.1. The Economic Case for the East of Silvertown project has been prepared following the guidance set out in the DfT’s WebTAG34 documents. WebTAG sets out, for transport schemes, the requirements of HM Treasury’s Green Book (A Guide to Investment Appraisal in the Public Sector)35. The Green Book is used across government for investment decisions through identification, selection and appraisal of options.

4.1.2. The purpose of the economic case is to determine whether the East of Silvertown project demonstrates value for money. Measures used to express the economic case for each assessed option include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR).

4.1.3. All options assessed are compared to the same reference case and the benefits and costs are calculated in terms of changes from the reference case. The 2031 Reference Case for the East of Silvertown project comprises the likely highway and public transport networks in the Study Area in the future (including Crossrail, the proposed Silvertown Tunnel and Barking Riverside Overground extension), and takes into account population growth and travel changes in the east sub-region.

4.1.4. The East of Silvertown project presented in this SOBC is defined as two fixed link crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere, which could take the form of bridges or tunnels. The core economic case figures are based on high-level bridges at each location. Section 4.8 presents a comparison of BCR results with bridges and tunnels.

34 WebTAG – Web (internet) base Transport Appraisal Guidance – https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag accessed 13 May 2015 35 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent accessed 13 May 2015

95

4.1.5. Following public consultation in autumn 2014, TfL has reviewed a long list of options for river crossings and has prepared an Option Assessment Report in two phases to document the decision-making process. The shortlisted Public transport packages are presented as options in this SOBC:

• Option A – Bus only on both crossings; • Option B – Bus on both crossings and Short DLR from Gallions Reach to

Thamesmead town centre on the Gallions Reach crossing; • Option C – Bus on both crossings and Long DLR from Barking to Abbey Wood on

the Gallions Reach crossing; and • Option D – Bus on both crossings and a Tram network serving Barking, Woolwich

and Abbey Wood on the Gallions Reach crossing.

4.1.6. These options are assessed for an appraisal period of 60 years from implementation to enable the comparison with the 2031 Reference Case to be made.

4.1.7. At this stage of business case development, the benefits of each option are assessed in terms of Transport Economic Efficiency benefits, comprising changes in user travel times, vehicle operating costs, user charges and greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e). The change in Indirect Tax Revenue (principally VAT and fuel duty) – treated as a ‘benefit’ – has been assessed. The assessment of user benefits does not include journey time reliability, health, public realm or accident impacts at this stage of the analysis. Costs assessed at this stage include estimates of the infrastructure, land and operating costs of the highway and public transport options but will be refined as the scheme continues to be developed.

4.1.8. The monetised highway benefits included in the present economic appraisal are derived from the highway assignment model prepared by TfL to estimate the effects of the implementation of alternative river crossings and road user charging. The model determines likely traffic flows on each main road in the east sub-region. The differences in journey times and costs for all trips between origin and destination zones in the traffic model between the reference case and ‘Do Something’ scenarios have been calculated using the DfT TUBA computer program which expresses the results in monetised form. The monetisation is carried out using standard values published by the DfT in the WebTAG data book.

4.1.9. The monetised public transport benefits included in the present economic appraisal are derived from TfL’s Railplan model. This model determines likely flows on the public transport network in London and its commuter belt. The changes in journey characteristics (journey time, crowding, costs etc.) for all trips between origin and destination zones in the traffic model between the reference case and ‘Do Something’ scenarios have been calculated using a bespoke spreadsheet-based tool developed specifically to produce TUBA-comparable monetised outputs. The monetisation also uses the standard values published by the DfT in the WebTAG data book.

4.1.10. The proposed river crossings are expected to have significant impacts on productivity and the spatial distribution of development impacts. Therefore a full assessment of the Wider Economic Impacts has also been calculated in terms of agglomeration, output change in imperfectly competitive markets and tax revenues arising from labour market impacts. The assessment of the value for money of the East of Silvertown

96

project has been carried out by calculating the project’s NPV and BCR. Sections 4.5 to 4.8 summarise the appraisal of user benefits and wider impacts.

4.1.11. In addition to the WebTAG appraisal, further analysis has been undertaken to understand the spatial distribution of regeneration effects, their net economic contribution at the London-wide level and the economic value this represents to the capital. This goes beyond the standard WebTAG regeneration analysis as part of an attempt to align the strategic and economic cases, in line with the recommendations from the Transport Investment and Economic Performance (TIEP) research36.

4.1.12. Sections 4.10 to 4.13 summarise the estimates of additional housing and employment growth supported by the public transport options and the assessment of the economic impacts thereof. Furthermore the assessment of the options in the context of dependent development is discussed.

4.2. Costs

4.2.1. Capital and operating costs for all crossing options are presented consistently within the two Option Assessment Reports (OAR) and this business case, although the cost definitions between these documents are not the same. As summarised in Figure 4-1, the draft OAR contains low and high cost estimates in 2013 prices. The business case documentation presents low and high cost estimates in 2010 prices with optimism bias (OB) of 66% applied to land and infrastructure costs.

36 The TIEP research can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-investment-and-economic-performance-tiep-report

97

Figure 4-1 Summary of cost estimates

Capital costs

4.2.2. Infrastructure cost estimates for a range of potential crossings were prepared in a number of engineering feasibility studies, and were collated into a single comparative report within the evidence provided for the consultation undertaken in autumn 2014. The costs presented outline an estimate cost for construction including oncosts (e.g. design, general items, overheads, profits and testing), permanent land acquisition, construction inflation considerations and Woolwich Ferry infrastructure demolition (including opportunity and risk) in a price range (low to high).

4.2.3. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the estimated capital cost of the bridge and tunnel options at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. The assumed opening year for all infrastructure is 2025. The highway infrastructure construction period is based on the engineering estimates of the required duration. A construction period of 48 months is assumed for the rail-based public transport options.

4.2.4. The marginal costs associated with public transport operations on the different river crossings were estimated in the first phase of the engineering feasibility study (Table 4-2). Changes to Gallions Reach bridge to accommodate DLR tracks on the bridge deck are estimated to cost around £25m. In the case of an immersed tunnel at Gallions Reach, it is expected that DLR would be accommodated in a completely separate cell adding around £110m to the infrastructure costs (2013 prices). Tram tracks could be accommodated in the dedicated lanes for buses. As such there is no additional cost in the immersed tunnel, and an additional £5m on the bridge due to the need for local strengthening of the track slab.

Option Assessment Reports (2013 prices)

Business Case (2010 prices)

Highway capital cost estimates

Public transport capital cost estimates

Public transport operating cost estimates

Define a low and high risk

contingency range

Adjust to common price base

Adjust for construction

inflation

Adjust to

WebTAG

price base

Apply optimism bias

98

Table 4-1: Summary of capital costs (£m, rounded)

Option Appraisal costs (2010 prices incl. OB)

2013 costs incl. risk and construction inflation but no OB

Outturn costs

Gallions Reach concrete box bridge

425-675 250-400 325-525

Gallions Reach immersed tunnel

650-1,050 400-625 550-800

Belvedere cable-stayed bridge

550-950 300-550 400-725

Belvedere immersed tunnel

600-1,100 350-625 475-850

4.2.5. For the remainder of the public transport infrastructure costs, estimates have been taken from a number of sources. These include case studies of past implemented schemes as well as relevant feasibility work undertaken on new infrastructure options, such as estimates for other extensions considered by TfL for other DLR extensions or busway schemes. The estimates include allowance for the cost of track, station upgrades, depots, rolling stock, signalling and construction, but they exclude land costs beyond the immediate crossing.

Table 4-2: Summary of public transport costs (£m, rounded)

Option Appraisal costs (2010 prices incl. OB)

2013 costs incl. risk and construction inflation but no OB

Outturn costs

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Bridge 275-300 225-250 325-350

Tunnel 400-425 300-325 475-500

Option C – Bus + Long DLR (long)

Bridge 1,100-1,200 850-950 1,300-1,400

Tunnel 1,200-1,300 950-1,050 1,400-1,550

Option D – Bus + Tram

Bridge 550-600 425-475 650-700

Tunnel 550-600 425-450 600-700

4.2.6. There would potentially also be some capital costs associated with providing bus tie-ins to the river crossings, and an indicative marginal cost of £30m (2013 prices excluding OB) has been assumed for Option A.

4.2.7. This work forms the basis for the costs of the options presented in this SOBC. Table 4-3 summarises the estimated capital cost range for each of the options with each of the combinations of bridge or immersed tunnel.

99

Table 4-3: Summary of option capital cost ranges (£m, rounded, 2010 prices, discounted)

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Gallions bridge / Belvedere bridge

600-1,000 800-1,150 1,300-1,750 1,000-1,450

Gallions tunnel / Belvedere bridge

800-1,200 1,050-1,500 1,550-2,100 1,150-1,650

Gallions bridge / Belvedere tunnel

700-1,100 850-1,250 1,350-1,850 1,050-1,500

Gallions tunnel / Belvedere tunnel

850-1,300 1,100-1,600 1,600-2,150 1,200-1,750

Operating costs

4.2.8. The capital costs for the highway infrastructure options include an operation and maintenance cost. This is estimated at around £0.5m per annum for the bridge options, or £4-5m annually for the immersed tunnel options (2013 prices).

4.2.9. Public transport operational costs have also been calculated by multiplying the forecast vehicle-km operated by average unit costs by mode across London (see Table 4-4). The AM peak hour estimates are annualised using a single operating multiplier for each transport mode.

Table 4-4 Public transport operating cost estimates

Mode Costs per vehicle-km operated (2014 prices)

Operating multiplier AM peak hour to annual

Risk contingency

Bus £4.04 6,120 +/- 10%

DLR £19.33 6,734 (single service on branch) or 5,830 (multiple services on branch)

The two estimation methods represent low and high operating cost estimates

DLR (assuming 50% related to infrastructure and 50% related to operations)

£1.3m per annum per track km + £10 per train-km operated

Tram £9.67 5,829 +10% to +25%

4.3. Assumptions

4.3.1. The business case is accompanied by an Appraisal Specification Report (ASR), which outlines all of the modelling and appraisal assumptions used. WebTAG guidance has been followed in undertaking the economic appraisal. Throughout the appraisal, standard values of time and operating costs have been used, which were consistent with the May 2014 WebTAG databook and TAG Unit A1.3 – User and Provider Impacts.

100

4.3.2. The highway models were undertaken using a version of TfL’s LoRDM model, which has not yet been updated in line with the FALP population and employment projections. Three time periods (AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak) have been modelled. At this stage of the project the opening year and design year results are extrapolated from 2021 and 2031 models. Updated versions of the 2021, 2031 and 2041 models will, however, be available for future stages of analysis.

4.3.3. The public transport modelling was undertaken using TfL’s Railplan 7 model, which has been updated in line with the FALP population and employment projections. At this stage in the project, all estimates have been extrapolated from an AM peak model. Only a single year 2031 has been modelled and all other years derived from this year using London growth factors.

4.3.4. The 2031 Reference Case uses the standard 2031 LTS demand matrices but the Railplan assignment includes the bus network changes proposed as part of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel and the Barking Riverside Overground Extension. The accompanying ASR contains more information on the model scenarios and assumptions used.

4.3.5. The East of Silvertown project includes road user charging, which has been assumed (for the purposes of the appraisal) to be applied on a ‘free-flow’ basis. The traffic modelling and costs have been carried out and prepared in accordance with DfT guidance that all users are assumed to pay the charge due, and that the costs of ensuring that they do so – the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) system – are included up to the point of being able to issue the first PCN . The level of user charges at the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings has not yet been updated in line with the Blackwall and Silvertown proposals. The user charge rates modelled were originally derived from the autumn 2014 cash rates at the Dartford Crossing.

4.3.6. Public transport revenue is estimated in a simplified manner based on an average yield per km for different transport modes.

4.3.7. The use of inputs from two different strategic models in the economic case is a proportionate approach given the relatively early stage of option assessment. However, the ASR does stress that the highway and public transport modelling inputs to the economic case are not directly comparable, and care must be taken in their interpretation:

• The growth assumptions in the two models are not comparable. The LTS public transport results include the latest FALP projections of population/employment growth and the central estimate of a range of car growth scenarios. The 2014 LoRDM highway results are from an older version of the model that has lower population/employment growth overall and a higher car mode share in central and inner London.

• The 2014 RXHAM outputs are not based on the latest user charging assumptions, nor do they include improvements to cross-river public transport. Consequently, the modelled impacts are likely to over-estimate demand for the two crossings.

• The highway and public transport inputs are derived from two different variable demand models that have been calibrated independently, and the mode choice and re-distribution effects may differ.

101

4.4. Sensitivity tests

4.4.1. The appraisal of transport user benefits has used London values of time (VoT). Sensitivity tests have also been conducted to present the appraisal results using DfT national values of time.

4.4.2. Further sensitivity tests will be carried out during later phases of analysis to assess the impact of external influences upon the economics of the East of Silvertown project. The analysis will need to consider the cumulative effects of other planned or committed transport investment. On the highways side, this is expected to include a sensitivity test with the Lower Thames Crossing. On the public transport side, this could involve sensitivity tests with other proposed schemes to serve the relevant growth areas.

4.4.3. There is forecasting uncertainty with regards to the actual levels of population and employment for a specific point in the future, and therefore land use sensitivity tests (e.g. further intensification of employment land or conversion of industrial land to residential) can be employed to understand how different land use scenarios would affect the findings for all the modelled years.

4.4.4. LonLUTI is a land-use and transport interaction model covering London and the South East. This will be employed for sensitivity testing purposes, but in only a subsequent phase of work once a preferred scheme option has been selected.

4.5. Headline scheme transport user benefits

4.5.1. Table 4-5 shows a summary of the scheme benefits for options A to D.

Over the 60 year appraisal period the scheme would generate a total user benefit of £5.0 to £5.7bn

Table 4-5 User benefit summary (Net Present Value, £m, rounded)

Description Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Travel time 4,820 4,980 5,400 5,510

Vehicle operating costs

190 190 190 190

User charges -30 -30 -30 -30

Total user benefits

4,980 5,140 5,560 5,670

102

(a) User benefits and charges by mode and journey purpose

4.5.2. Table 4-6 shows the user benefits by class of business transport system user.

4.5.3. The user charge is negative for car and taxi users as these are net monetary costs. However, the scheme provides additional benefits that outweigh the charge incurred by users. The user charge impact for road freight users is marginally positive for many HGVs and LGVs since the modelled off-peak charge at Gallions Reach and Belvedere is lower than the Dartford Crossing.

Table 4-6 Business user benefits and charges (£m)

Business users

Benefit type Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Car and taxi

Travel time 900

Vehicle operating costs

36

User charges -30

LGV and HGV

Travel time 855

Vehicle operating costs

139

User charges 7

Public transport

Travel time 417 477 574 647

Vehicle operating costs

0 0 0 0

User charges 0 0 0 0

Total business user benefits (rounded)

2,020 2,320 2,380 2,480

103

4.5.4. Table 4-7 shows the user benefits broken down by other classes of transport system user.

Table 4-7 Other user benefits and charges (£m)

Other users

Benefit type Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Car commuting

Travel time 455

Vehicle operating costs

12

User charges -8

Public transport commuting

660 716 957 928

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Car other Travel time 1,083

Vehicle operating costs

13

User charges 2

Public transport other

Travel time 457 496 628 642

Vehicle operating costs

0 0 0 0

User charges 0 0 0 0

Total other user benefits (rounded)

2,660 2,760 3,080 3,120

(b) Benefits by year

4.5.5. Some elements of the user benefits described above have been derived from a single year model and extrapolated over the 60 year appraisal period. A full assessment of the breakdown of benefits and charges by time period will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case when the full set of required model years is available.

(c) Benefits and charges by time period

4.5.6. Some elements of the user benefits described above have been derived from an AM peak model only and therefore a full analysis of benefits and charges by time periods is not justified at this stage. A full assessment of the breakdown of benefits and charges by time period will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case when models for all periods will be available.

(d) Assessment of traffic delays during construction and maintenance

4.5.7. An assessment of traffic delays during construction and maintenance will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case.

104

(e) Monetised environmental assessment

4.5.8. An assessment of the monetised environmental implications of the scheme will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case.

(f) Transport economic efficiency (TEE)

4.5.9. The transport economic efficiency results for option A (for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates) are shown in Table 4-8. Total user benefits (excluding transport provider impacts) are estimated at £5bn, with some £2.3bn of this being attributable to business users. The highway benefits are shown after taking into account the charges paid by users. The impact of the user charges is net across all charged crossings including Blackwall, Silvertown (proposed) and Dartford Crossings.

4.5.10. The public transport user benefits do not take into account fare impacts since these are not considered in the Railplan model. However, as indicated by the revenue loss, the transfer of passengers from longer rail to shorter bus journeys would represent an additional financial saving to many users.

Table 4-8 Transport economic efficiency – Option A (£m)

105

4.5.11. The transport economic efficiency results for Option B is shown in Table 4-9 (again for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits (excluding transport provider impacts) are estimated at around £5.1bn, with some £2.4bn of this being attributable to business users.

Table 4-9 Transport economic efficiency – Option B (£m)

106

4.5.12. The transport economic efficiency results for Option C is shown in Table 4-10 (again for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits are estimated at around £5.6bn, with some £2.5bn of this being attributable to business users. The overall present value of TEE benefits is lower than Option B as a result of the significantly higher public transport investment and operating costs.

Table 4-10 Transport economic efficiency – Option C (£m)

107

4.5.13. The transport economic efficiency results for Option D is shown in Table 4-11 (again for a range of costs from low to high cost estimates). Total user benefits are estimated at around £5.7bn, with some £2.6bn of this being attributable to business users. The overall present value of TEE benefits is similar to Option C with high user benefits but also high public transport investment and operating costs.

Table 4-11 Transport economic efficiency – Option D (£m)

(g) Public accounts (PA)

4.5.14. All new river crossings in east London would apply user charging for two reasons:

• Traffic demand management - TfL would use charging as a way to manage demand and therefore levels of traffic at the crossings at different times of the day.

• Funding - TfL would also use revenue generated by the user charging scheme to help pay for river crossings and associated transport infrastructure.

4.5.15. The exact level of charge is not yet known. TfL is consulting on the proposed user charging scheme for the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown Tunnels in October-November 2015. The user charges for the proposed Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings would need to be coordinated with the Blackwall, Silvertown and Dartford Crossings to ensure incentives are insufficient to cause significant numbers of drivers to undertake detours to avoid charges.

108

4.5.16. The modelled level of user charges at the Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings has not yet been updated in line with the Blackwall and Silvertown proposals. The user charge rates modelled were originally derived from the autumn 2014 cash rates at the Dartford Crossing, namely £2.50 for cars, £3.00 for LGVs and £6.00 for HGVs. Under the central case tested, the Blackwall, Silvertown, Gallions Reach and Belvedere crossings assume a charge at the same level as the Dartford Crossing in the morning peak northbound and the evening peak southbound. A charge (50 per cent of the Dartford charge) has been assumed to apply to vehicles travelling in the contra-peak directions, and in both directions in the inter-peak period, at weekends and Bank Holidays, and is free between 22.00 and 06.00 daily. The current expectation is that the user charging revenue would only cover a proportion of the total capital expenditure required for the crossings.

4.5.17. WebTAG guidance on the Public Accounts assessment is that the present value of costs (PVCs) “should only comprise Public Accounts impacts (i.e., costs borne by public bodies) that directly affect the budget available for transport”. The guidance notes further that “Where a scheme leads to changes in public sector revenues (for example tolling options) careful consideration should be given to whether they will accrue to the Broad Transport Budget and all assumptions, and their justifications, should be clearly reported”.

4.5.18. In this case, the revenue from user charges is only expected to cover a proportion of the total cost borne by TfL in implementing the project. Furthermore, the public transport revenue impacts vary significantly depending on whether bus or rail-based solutions are adopted. Under all options, there is a significant funding gap between the combined net revenue and cost. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that the revenue impacts be accounted for on the PVC side of the BCR calculation.

Direct cost savings to businesses and freight

4.5.19. Evidence from previous improvements in river crossings shows there can be major cost savings for business. This can range from opportunities to centralise depots (no need to have one on each side of the river), gains of economies of scale from being able to serve a larger market, and reductions in fleet size due to time savings. These impacts are difficult to quantify and there is a danger of double counting as time savings and reliability savings are already captured in the appraisal.

4.6. Option appraisal

4.6.1. The overall effects of the four options are shown in the Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables below (presenting ranges of costs from lower end estimates to high end estimates). All revenues, operating costs and investment costs are expected to accrue to TfL.

4.6.2. Option A has a NPV of £2.8-3.5bn and consequently a BCR of 2.9 to 4.7.

109

Table 4-12 Public accounts – Option A (£m)

Table 4-13 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option A (£m)

4.6.3. With the introduction of a DLR extension on the Gallions Reach crossing, Option B has a higher investment cost than Option A but this is partially offset by the greater public transport revenue impacts. Consequently Option B has a NPV of £2.3-3.0bn and a BCR of 2.3 to 3.4.

110

Table 4-14 Public accounts – Option B (£m)

Table 4-15 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option B (£m)

111

4.6.4. Option C has a much higher cost than options A and B due to the capital and operating costs of the longer DLR extension. The longer DLT extension is targeted at potential development areas with little potential patronage in the 2031 Reference Case, and consequently the user benefits are relatively low. Therefore Option C has a NPV of £0.4-1.5bn and a BCR of 1.1 to 1.7.

Table 4-16 Public accounts – Option C (£m)

Table 4-17 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option C (£m)

112

4.6.5. While the tram network in Option D has a wider coverage than the DLR in Option C, the capital and operating costs are estimated to be marginally lower. Yet as with Option C, a large proportion of the tram network is targeted at development areas with little potential patronage in the 2031 Reference Case and thus low user benefits.

4.6.6. Option D has a NPV of £1.4-2.0bn and a BCR of 1.5 to 2.0.

Table 4-18 Public accounts – Option D (£m)

Table 4-19 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option D (£m)

113

Results of value of time sensitivity test

4.6.7. Tables 4-5 to 4-19 use London Values of Time (VoT) Table 4-20 shows a comparison of the NPVs and BCRs using London and national values of time.

Table 4-20 Comparison of appraisal results by London and national values of time

London values of time National values of time

NPV (£m) BCR NPV (£m) BCR

Option A – Bus only

2,780 to 3,500 2.9 to 4.7 1,430 to 2,150 2.0 to 3.0

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

2,310 to 3,010 2.3 to 3.4 920 to 1,620 1.5 to 2.3

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

360 to 1,490 1.1 to 1.7 -1,160 to -30 0.6 to 1.0

Option D – Bus + Tram

1,360 to 2,010 1.5 to 2.0 -190 to 460 0.9 to 1.2

Appraisal summary table

4.6.8. A full appraisal summary table will be prepared as part of the work for the Full Business Case.

Value for money statement

4.6.9. Reference has already been made above to the DfT’s Value for Money Guidance. This provides a table to place the scheme, on the basis of its Benefit to Cost Ratio, into one of the DfT’s Value for Money categories.

Table 4-21 Value for money

Benefit to cost ratio range Value for money scale

Less than 1.0 Poor value for money

Between 1.0 and 1.5 Low value for money

Between 1.5 and 2.0 Medium value for money

Between 2.0 and 4.0 High value for money

Greater than 4.0 Very high value for money

4.6.10. Using London VoT, the mid-point of the range for Options A and B fall into the High Value for Money range (between 2.0 and 4.0). This means that the social welfare benefits are greater than the net cost borne by the public sector project sponsor. The mid-point of the range for Option C falls into the Low Value for Money range. The range for Option D into the Medium Value for Money range.

4.6.11. The rail-based public transport options, in particular Options C and D, are intended to serve development areas that are currently characterised by low patronage and therefore the assessment of user benefits is only a partial reflection of the overall scheme impacts. As described in the following section, there are substantial wider economic benefits that have not been taken into account in this BCR estimate.

114

4.7. Wider Economic Impacts

4.7.1. The DfT defines “Wider Impacts” as the economic impacts of transport that are additional to transport user benefits. Transport schemes are likely to have impacts not only in the transport market but also in the labour, product and land markets. A key objective of the East of Silvertown river crossings is to support growth in east and southeast London by providing cross-river transport links for residents, businesses and services.

4.7.2. The types of Wider Impacts that DfT includes in transport appraisals are:

• WI1 – Agglomeration; • WI2 - Output change in imperfectly competitive markets; and • WI3 - Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts (from labour supply

impacts and from moves to more or less productive jobs).

4.7.3. The Wider Impacts calculations have followed the guidance contained in TAG Unit A2.1. Further details of the exact methodology used can be found in the accompanying ASR.

WI1 Agglomeration

4.7.4. Agglomeration refers to the concentration of economic activity within an area. Transport can alter the accessibility of firms in an area to other firms and workers, thereby affecting the level of agglomeration. Businesses derive productivity benefits from being close to one another and from being located in large labour markets. If transport investment brings firms closer together and closer to their workforce this may generate an increase in labour productivity above and beyond that which would be expected from the direct user benefits alone. Knowledge and technology spillovers are also important aspects of agglomeration effects.

4.7.5. The change in proximity of firms to other firms and workers is measured using the change in generalised costs for commuting and business trips. The generalised costs for each mode contain the following:

• Public transport: journey time and fares • Highway: journey time, user charges, fuel and non-fuel operating costs • Active modes: journey time

4.7.6. The scale of the change in public transport/highway journey times and access to the labour market is discussed in the accompanying Public Transport Connectivity Analysis report and Traffic Impacts Report.

4.7.7. Average daily generalised costs weighted by mode, journey purpose and time period are calculated between all local authorities in the study area. In order to provide an indication of the scale of the impacts, Tables 4-22 to 4-24 show the percentage change in daily generalised cost by mode between the five study area boroughs that would experience the greatest change. For illustrative purposes, the change estimated for Option C is shown. (N) and (S) denote boroughs located north and south of the River Thames.

115

Table 4-22 Change in highway average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by journey purpose and time period, Option C)

Newham (N) Barking and Dagenham (N)

Havering (N) Bexley (S)

Greenwich (S)

Newham (N) +2% +1% +1% -32% -13%

Barking and Dagenham (N)

-1% -1% +1% -45% -21%

Havering (N) -3% -1% - -33% -38%

Bexley (S) -32% -41% -27% +2% +1%

Greenwich (S) -15% -27% -26% +1% -1%

Table 4-23 Change in public transport average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by journey purpose and time period, Option C)

Newham (N) Barking and Dagenham (N)

Havering (N) Bexley (S)

Greenwich (S)

Newham (N) - - - -3% -4%

Barking and Dagenham (N)

-1% - - -21% -9%

Havering (N) - - - -22% -7%

Bexley (S) -5% -22% -23% -1% -1%

Greenwich (S) -5% -11% -12% - -1%

116

Table 4-24 Change in active modes average generalised cost (£, 2031, weighted by journey purpose and time period, Option C)37

Newham (N) Barking and Dagenham (N)

Havering (N) Bexley (S)

Greenwich (S)

Newham (N) - - - -18% +2%

Barking and Dagenham (N)

- - - -17% -

Havering (N) - - - -48% -31%

Bexley (S) -22% -20% -53% - -

Greenwich (S) +6% +11% -30% - -

4.7.8. The change in generalised costs is used to measure the change in effective density for each scenario. This measure estimates the mass of economic activity across the 33 London boroughs that comprise the study area and the accessibility of firms to workers and vice versa, and of firms to other firms. Since the effect of proximity has different accessibility and productivity impacts by sector, the effective densities are calculated for four different sectors: manufacturing, construction, consumer services and producer services.

4.7.9. In order to provide an indication of the likely scale of the agglomeration impacts by market sector, Table 4-25 shows the estimated 2031 agglomeration impact by sector for the five study area boroughs. For illustrative purposes, the change measured for Option C is shown. In addition to these study area boroughs, there is also a significant negative agglomeration impact of -£19m in Tower Hamlets due to a small increase in highway congestion affecting a large number of high value producer services jobs (although in practice this sector is much more highly dependent on public transport connectivity).

37 Active modes include both cycling and walking journey times derived from LTS. In cases where new river crossings reduce the distance between origins and destination to less than the walking distance threshold, this can result in an increase in weighted average journey time when compared to a cycling-only journey times without the crossing.

117

Table 4-25 Agglomeration impact by sector (£m, 2031, 2010 prices, Option C)

Borough Manufacturing Construction Consumer services

Producer services

Total

Newham (N) - - -0.2 -0.8 -1.0

Barking and Dagenham (N)

0.2 0.1 0.4 1.5 2.3

Havering (N) 0.2 0.6 1.4 7.8 10.0

Bexley (S) 0.5 0.7 1.5 8.0 10.7

Greenwich (S) 0.2 0.3 0.8 3.8 5.1

4.7.10. Table 4-26 summarises the agglomeration benefits of the four options discounted over the 60-year appraisal period. The TAG guidance on wider impacts also recommends a sensitivity test including LGVs and HGVs in the definition of business travel demand.

Table 4-26: WI1 – Agglomeration (PV, £m, 2010 prices)

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Personal business travel 1,880 1,900 2,030 2,080

Sensitivity test including

HGVs/LGVs 2,340 2,360 2,500 2,570

WI2 Output change in imperfectly competitive markets

4.7.11. This is the welfare impact that results because increases in the output of goods and services are valued more highly by consumers than the cost of producing this output. This impact is estimated as a proportion of total user benefits for business journeys, calculated as a 10 per cent uplift to business user benefits (car, freight and public transport). Based on the current economic appraisal, this additional benefit would equate to £230-260m PV for the options over the 60 year appraisal (Table 4-27).

Table 4-27: WI2 – Output change in imperfectly competitive markets (PV, £m, 2010 prices)

Option A - Bus only Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

230 240 250 260

118

WI3a Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts

4.7.12. The provision of new river crossings would have significant effects on the costs and benefits to some individuals from working. In deciding whether to work, an individual would weigh the costs of working, including travel costs, against the wage rate of the job travelled to. The calculation of the labour supply impact estimates the additional value that is generated if a transport improvements changes travel costs, and therefore affects the number of people attracted into work.

4.7.13. This impact is measured using the change in round-trip commuting average generalised costs. Similar to the calculation of WI1, average daily generalised costs weighted by mode and time period are calculated between all local authorities in the study area.

4.7.14. The tax revenues are calculated by measuring the change in commuting generalised costs, the resulting change to the quantity of workers in the market, and the effect of this on GDP. TAG Unit A2.1 states that 40% of the change in GDP is estimated to accrue to the Exchequer as tax revenues. Table 4-28 summarises the labour market supply impacts of the four options discounted over the 60-year appraisal period.

Table 4-28: WI2 – Tax revenues arising from labour market outputs (PV, £m, 2010 prices)

Option A - Bus only Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

110 110 120 130

WI3b Move to more productive jobs

4.7.15. People will move to more productive jobs if the earnings obtained from the job move exceed the additional generalised cost of travel to those jobs. River crossings can open up new job opportunities for people due to improved connectivity by both public transport and car. Table 4-29 shows that median wages vary quite considerably across the Thames from just under £21k in Bexley to £43k in Tower Hamlets and £51k in the City, and wages on the south side appear to be markedly lower than on the north. The Tower Hamlets figure is higher than surrounding inner London boroughs due to the Canary Wharf financial services cluster.

119

Table 4-29 Median wages in the study area (2013)38

Side of the river

Borough Jobs within borough (000s)

Median wage all employees (£)

North City of London 289 50,816

Tower Hamlets 189 43,501

Newham 53 23,896

Barking and Dagenham

48 29,964

Havering 56 23,230

South Southwark 140 32,168

Lewisham 38 23,169

Greenwich 55 23,825

Bexley 58 20,640

4.7.16. DfT recommend use of a LUTI model to assess the move to more productive jobs impacts and it is proposed that this will be undertaken for the Full Business Case.

4.7.17. In the case of the East of Silvertown project there is a clear disparity between wages in boroughs north and south of the river, with the exception of Southwark, part of which is located within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). As set out in the Strategic Case, the boroughs south of the river are characterised by poor access to jobs and also by lower median wages in the local job market. In the absence of LUTI modelling, the forecast scale of the re-distribution of morning peak public transport and highway trips is discussed in the accompanying Public Transport Connectivity Analysis report.

Summary of Wider Impacts Appraisal calculations

4.7.18. Table 4-30 shows a summary of the wider impacts appraisal (all figures shown as 60-year NPV). The conclusion from this analysis of wider economic impacts demonstrates that there are substantial additional benefits of the East of Silvertown project, which are not yet captured in the user benefits appraisal. Indeed the wider economic impacts are central to the overall rationale for the project.

38 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2013 Revised results, ONS

120

Table 4-30 Summary of wider impacts appraisal (PV, £m, 2010 prices)

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

WI1 Agglomeration 1,880 1,900 2,030 2,080

WI2 Output change in imperfectly competitive markets

230 240 250 260

WI3a Tax revenues arising from labour market impacts

110 110 120 130

WI3b Move to more productive jobs Not calculated

Total 2,220 2,250 2,400 2,470

Wider impacts as % of user benefits (excl operator costs)

45% 44% 43% 44%

4.8. Summary of user benefits and Wider Economic Impacts appraisal

4.8.1. Table 4-31 summarises the NPV and BCRs with and without assessment of the Wider Economic Impacts of the four options. These figures are based on the assumption that both crossings are in the form of bridges.

Table 4-31 Summary of economic Benefit to Cost Analysis and growth performance

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

WebTAG TEE only

NPV (£m) 2,780 to 3,500 2,310 to 3,010 360 to 1,490 1,360 to 2,010

BCR 2.9 to 4.7 2.3 to 3.4 1.1 to 1.7 1.5 to 2.0

WebTAG TEE + wider impacts

NPV (£m) 5,000 to 5,720 4,560 to 5,260 2,760 to 3,890 3,830 to 44,80

BCR 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2

Summary of appraisal by bridge or tunnel

4.8.2. No decision has yet been made about whether bridge or tunnel crossings would be more appropriate at Gallions Reach and Belvedere. As shown in Table 4-3, the estimated capital costs for the crossings vary depending on the type of crossing. Conversely the modelled transport and wider impacts do not distinguish between the type of crossing. Table 4-32 sets out how the calculated benefit to cost ratios of the

121

options vary by the different bridge and tunnel combinations. The BCRs are based on the WebTAG definition of TEE user benefits and wider economic impacts.

Table 4-32: Summary of Benefit to Cost Ratios by bridge and tunnel combinations

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Gallions bridge / Belvedere bridge 4.4 to 7.1 3.5 to 5.1 1.9 to 2.7 2.5 to 3.2

Gallions tunnel / Belvedere bridge 3.8 to 6.1 3.0to 4.3 1.7 to 2.5 2.3 to 3.0

Gallions bridge / Belvedere tunnel 4.1 to 6.7 3.4 to 4.9 1.9 to 2.7 2.4 to 3.1

Gallions tunnel / Belvedere tunnel 3.6 to 5.8 2.9 to 4.2 1.7 to 2.4 2.2 to 2.9

4.9. Further supplementary analysis proposed for later stages

4.9.1. Several further impacts have not yet been monetised in the appraisal but will be included in the Full Business Case. These are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Journey time reliability

4.9.2. The assessment of transport user benefits does not yet include a quantification of journey time reliability impacts. This can be undertaken using the methodology set out in WebTAG Unit A1.3.

Health

4.9.3. The Option Assessment Report includes a discussion on options for including walking and cycling provision as part of any new river crossing. Depending on the outcome of this workstream, the river crossings are likely to have either a moderate negative or a strong positive impact on physical activity levels. These impacts will be assessed using the World Heath Organisation’s HEAT tool guidance as part of the Full Business Case.

Public realm

4.9.4. The new river crossings are expected to have positive and negative impacts on the public realm in different parts of the study area. For example, parts of Woolwich town centre would be relieved of the effects of traffic queues forming near the Woolwich Ferry. Conversely, some of the traffic management measures required at the Belvedere crossing are likely have a negative impact on the quality of the public realm near to the tie-ins of the crossing with the existing network. Once a preferred option (with accompanying mitigation measures) has been identified, the most significant public realm impacts can be quantified and monetised using TfL’s Valuing Urban Realm toolkit.

Accident benefits

4.9.5. TUBA does not calculate benefits that are due to changes in accident costs. Accident benefits are calculated using the DfT’s COBALT (Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light

122

Touch) software tool. COBALT assesses the safety aspects of road schemes using inputs of either (a) separate road links and road junctions that would be impacted by the scheme; or (b) combined links and junctions. The assessment is based on a comparison of accidents by severity and associated costs across an identified network in ‘Without-Scheme’ and ‘With-Scheme’ forecasts, using details of link and junction characteristics, relevant accident rates and costs and forecast traffic volumes by link and junction.

4.9.6. No COBALT analysis of the East of Silvertown project has yet been undertaken.

4.10. Potential development impacts

4.10.1. The options represent four public transport packages to serve different areas around the proposed Gallions Reach crossing. There is considerable development land available in this part of London, and as highlighted above, understanding these development impacts and their contribution to regeneration is a crucial element of the economic case. Two methods have been employed to understand the level of additional housing and jobs growth supported by the options.

4.10.2. Some of the areas served by the proposed public transport links are currently either vacant or utilised for relatively low density industrial and logistics operations. These areas could contribute to meeting London’s housing needs since they present opportunities for medium density residential and mixed used development. However, they are characterised by very low levels of public transport accessibility, which limits their development potential. Section 4.11 describes how the potential uplift in public transport accessibility has been used to calculate the number of homes that could be defined as dependent development.

4.10.3. The proposed crossings would also lead to wider network connectivity improvements in the surrounding boroughs. Section 4.12 sets out the evidence on the relationship between transport connectivity and density. It describes how the potential improvement in access to jobs and access to the labour market is used to forecast the uplift in population and employment density in the local area.

4.10.4. Section 4.13 describes how the regeneration benefits associated with these development impacts have been calculated.

4.11. Dependent development

4.11.1. The DfT (TAG Unit A2-3) provides guidance for assessing a transport intervention which unlocks housing development. Dependent development refers to new development that is dependent on the provision of a transport scheme and for which, with the new development but in the absence of the transport scheme, the existing transport network would not provide a reasonable level of service to existing and/or new users. This has the implication that the development would not be delivered in the absence of the transport scheme.

4.11.2. A precise definition of reasonable level of service is not provided by the guidance. However, it does state that if additional traffic can be accommodated by the network without significant increases in the costs of travel for existing users, then the network can be assumed to be providing a reasonable level of service.

123

4.11.3. The guidance recommends a four step approach to assessing the value for money of transport interventions that unlock a housing development:

• Step 1: Determine the quantity of new housing development that should be regarded as dependent on a transport intervention;

• Step 2: Identify the minimum transport scheme required to restore a reasonable level of service;

• Step 3: Assess the transport user benefits of the transport intervention in isolation (that is, in the absence of the dependent housing development);

• Step 4: Assess the benefits of the dependent housing development assuming the transport intervention is provided.

Step 1 – Determine the quantity of new housing development that should be regarded as dependent on a transport intervention

4.11.4. As set out in the Strategic Case, the proposed East of Silvertown river crossings improve connectivity between four OAs. The focus in many of these areas has previously been on the intensification of employment land uses but it is recognised that Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) could be released for residential and mixed use development.

4.11.5. The definition of dependency focuses on the impact of housing development on the existing transport network. Housing development may be dependent on a wide variety of other factors, but, for a transport authority the key issue in determining whether a transport scheme is required is the impact of new housing on the current transport network.

4.11.6. In order to sustainably accommodate growth within the constraints of the existing transport network, the London Plan places considerable weight on Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL)39 as a measure to guide higher density development to suitable locations. Table 4-33 shows the London Plan density standards.

Table 4-33 London Plan density (dwellings per hectare)

PTAL 0-1 2-3 4-6

Suburban 35-75 35-95 45-130

Urban 35-95 45-170 45-260

Central 35-110 65-240 140-405

4.11.7. Although the river crossings would serve a number of sites that could accommodate housing, it is Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley where the existing transport network presents the greatest barrier to housing growth.

39 For further information on the PTAL methodology please refer to the accompanying Public Transport Connectivity Analysis report

124

Thamesmead

4.11.8. Thamesmead is characterised by poor highway and especially rail connectivity. While Thamesmead South will benefit greatly from the improved connectivity that Crossrail services from Abbey Wood station will provide, the impact of Crossrail on communities in Thamesmead North will be more limited. In light of this situation, the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Opportunity Area Framework (OAPF) makes provision for 3,000 new homes and 4,000 new jobs. However, the more recent FALP projections include over 3,000 new homes in Thamesmead North in the 2031 Reference Case (as shown in Table 4-34).

Table 4-34 Projections of Thamesmead housing growth

Thamesmead North Thamesmead South

Dwellings Dwellings per ha

Dwellings Dwellings per ha

2011 estimate* 5,300 12 3,300 20

2031 Reference Case estimate*

8,400 19 3,900 23

Change 2011-2031

+3,100 +7 +600 +3

Development capacity study (unconstrained residential capacity)

2,600 36 1,900 31

Previous proposal for Tamesis Point

2,000 60-70 - -

* Households from Railplan 7 model (including FALP)

4.11.9. Additional housing in Thamesmead can be accommodated through the densification of existing neighbourhoods, new development on the Tamesis Point site and mixed use development in Thamesmead town centre. A large proportion of these areas are in the hands of Peabody, who produced an emerging vision document in January 201540. Tamesis Point and Thamesmead town centre combined represent an area of 43 hectares.

4.11.10. Without significant improvements in public transport connectivity, housing development in this area will be dependent on the existing transport network, which as stated above is characterised by poor highway and public transport connectivity. Tamesis Point is a suburban site with PTAL ratings of around 1b. The existing Thamesmead Retail Park has a PTAL value of 3.

40 Peabody (2015) Thamesmead Futures Plan: A discussion paper

125

4.11.11. The previous proposal to develop the Tamesis Point site at a density of 60-70 dwellings per hectare is at the top end of what would be permissible in this location with the current PTAL rating. It is questionable whether the site is viable at a density of 60-70 dwellings per hectare and the Peabody vision document makes reference to a number of potential public transport improvements to facilitate higher densities. For the purpose of estimating dependent development, it is assumed that the maximum growth without additional transport improvements is 2,000 new homes.

Lower Roding Valley

4.11.12. There are large parcels of land located between Gallions Reach and Barking that are predominantly used for low density industrial, warehousing, retail and leisure uses, and include some vacant undeveloped land. The entire area is characterised by low PTAL values of 2 or less.

4.11.13. The area falls within the Royal Docks and Beckton Opportunity Area, for which there is a target of 11,000 new homes covering the whole OA. The most recent FALP projections include over 2,000 homes in the Lower Roding Valley area. This increase could be delivered by building out planned development sites near to Gallions Reach station.

Table 4-35 Projections of Lower Roding Valley housing growth

Armada Junction, Claps Gate Lane and Jenkins Lane

Dwellings Dwellings per ha

2011 estimate* 4,000 12

2031 Reference Case estimate* 6,100 18

Change 2011-2031 +2,100 +6

Development capacity study (unconstrained residential capacity)

2,100 16

* Households from Railplan 7 model (including FALP)

4.11.14. Local accessibility in this area is constrained by Royal Docks Road, the A13, the DLR and the Northern Outfall Sewer. As a result, the conversion of additional parcels of land to residential or mixed use development is unlikely to occur in the absence of high-quality public transport links to penetrate into development sites. Proposals for a public transport link through this area linking Barking to the Royal Docks are not new. For example, previous proposals for the East London Transit identified an alignment through the Lower Roding Valley corridor.

4.11.15. Note that the detailed site-based assessment in this section is assumed to replace the more strategic assessment of potential development impacts above since both assessments cover the same area.

126

Step 2 – Identify appropriate transport interventions

4.11.16. The proposed East of Silvertown river crossings provide an opportunity to significantly enhance public transport connectivity for Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley.

4.11.17. Option A includes new bus connectivity improvements for Thamesmead:

• New direct bus links to the Royal Docks and Barking providing access to jobs and services;

• Increased capacity and frequency on bus feeder services to Crossrail at Abbey Wood and Woolwich; and

• PTAL increases from 1b to 3 in areas within 5-minutes of walk of Thamesmead Town Centre.

4.11.18. Objectively, the package of cross-river bus improvements represents a significant increase in connectivity that would justify a higher density of development. However, the experience of Barking Riverside suggests that bus-only solutions do little to instil confidence in the site and to raise land values. It is therefore concluded that a limited increase of up to 2,800 new homes would be possible in Tamesis Point. This equates to a density of around 95 dwellings per hectare, which is at the top end of the PTAL 2-3 standard for suburban areas.

4.11.19. Option B includes new bus and DLR connectivity improvements for Thamesmead:

• New DLR links to Royal Docks, Canary Wharf, Stratford, the City and Custom House (for interchange to Crossrail);

• Thamesmead would appear on the tube map; • New direct bus links to the Royal Docks and Barking providing access to jobs and

services; • Increased capacity and frequency on bus feeder services to Crossrail at Abbey

Wood and Woolwich; • PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within 5-minutes of walk of

Thamesmead Town Centre; and • The experience of Barking Riverside suggests that this would generate investor

confidence and improve site viability.

4.11.20. Cumulatively, the Option B improvements represent both a major step change in connectivity for Thamesmead and a strong signal to developers. This level of connectivity would warrant high density development around the stations, although the maximum densities over the area as a whole are likely to be constrained by rain water attenuation requirements. It is therefore concluded that an increase of up to 4,400 new homes would be possible in Tamesis Point along with a further 2,100 within a higher density mixed use re-development of Thamesmead town centre. This equates to a density of around 150 dwellings per hectare, which is a reasonable assumption for a local mixed use centre based around a PTAL 3/4 hub.

4.11.21. Option B would also provide connectivity improvements to the area around the proposed Armada Junction station, which would have a PTAL value of 3. At a density

127

of around 95 dwellings per hectare, there is scope for around 4,500 new homes around this station.

4.11.22. Therefore it is calculated that a total of 8,200 new homes are dependent on the Short DLR connectivity provided in Option B.

4.11.23. Option C include a wider range of improvements for both Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley:

• New DLR links from Thamesmead and Lower Roding to Royal Docks, Canary Wharf, Stratford, the City providing access to jobs and services;

• New DLR links to Custom House or Abbey Wood (for interchange to Crossrail) and to Barking (for interchange to Underground and national rail services);

• Thamesmead and Lower Roding Valley on the tube map; • PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within easy walking distance of

Thamesmead West and Thamesmead Town Centre; • PTAL increases from 1b/2 to 3/4 in areas within easy walking distance of new DLR

stations in the Lower Roding Valley; and • The experience of Barking Riverside suggests that this would generate investor

confidence and improve site viability.

4.11.24. These improvements would represent a major change in connectivity for Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley, and a strong justification for the conversion of land to residential and mixed use development. It is calculated that 19,500 new homes are dependent on the Long DLR connectivity in Option C.

4.11.25. The connectivity improvements associated with Option D vary slightly from Option C, with better links to Woolwich and less connections via Custom House. However, the overall increase in PTAL values is actually very similar to Option D and the same net increase in homes is assumed.

4.11.26. Table 4-36 summarises the net number of dependent homes for each of the four options. The provision of high quality public transport on the crossings will increase connectivity levels, which is expected to enable the delivery of between10,000 and 20,000 additional homes in the study area (for options B, C and D).

Table 4-36 Summary of dependent development (net number of dependent homes)

Thamesmead Lower Roding Valley

Total

Option A – Bus only 800 0 800

Option B – Bus + Short DLR 4,500 4,500 9,000

Option C – Bus + Long DLR 4,500 15,000 19,500

Option D – Bus + Tram 4,500 15,000 19,500

4.11.27. The development of housing in Thamesmead would be focussed on areas of currently vacant land and town centre intensification, and is therefore not expected to lead to a reduction in employment. Conversely, it is likely that medium-density mixed use development in the Lower Roding Valley would lead to a reduction in land available for lower density employment uses. As such, it is assumed that 40% of existing jobs in the

128

Lower Roding Valley would be lost but that this is partially offset by new population-based employment (assumed ratio one job per ten residents).

Step 3 - Assess the transport user benefits of the transport intervention in isolation (that is, in the absence of the dependent housing development)

4.11.28. Public transport options for the East of Silvertown project have been modelled in Railplan using a 2031 Reference Case. The reference case includes growth of around 3,100 dwellings in Thamesmead North (see Table 4-34).

4.11.29. The transport user benefits for options A to D are presented in this document. Table 4-37 summarises marginal cost of providing the public transport options and the public transport user benefits. The benefits are presented in the absence of the dependent housing development. As stated earlier the public transport options would serve areas of vacant land, and as a result the marginal transport case for the public transport options is weak in the absence of development.

Table 4-37 Summary of public transport user benefits (£m, 2010 prices, 60-year appraisal, discounted)

Marginal PVC PVB NPV BCR

Option A – Bus only 580 to 770 760 to 950 180 1.2 to 1.3

Option B – Bus + Short DLR 910 to1,090 600 to 770 -310 0.7

Option C – Bus + Long DLR 1,890 to 2,280 -170 to 220 -2,060 -0.1 to 0.1

Option D – Bus + Tram 1,680 to 1,840 380 to 540 -1,300 0.2 to 0.3

Step 4 – Assess the benefits of the dependent housing development assuming the transport intervention is provided

4.11.30. In order to assess the full benefits of the dependent housing with the public transport options, it is necessary to run a further scenario with the additional dependent development. The rail-based public transport options (Options B, C and D) have been modelled in Railplan with the dependent development added to the relevant zones.

4.11.31. The distribution of trips associated with the dependent development has been derived through an aggregation process. Since some of the affected Railplan zones currently have very low housing numbers, it is not appropriate to apply the existing trip distribution based on a very small sample to future housing, which may differ significantly from the existing. In order to overcome this, a sectored trip distribution was calculated for a number of zones surrounding Thamesmead and the Lower Roding Valley (with a range of spatial and housing tenure characteristics), and applied to the net additional housing in the ‘with dependent development’ model runs.

4.11.32. For each of the rail-based public transport options (Options B, C and D), the Railplan model runs with and without dependent development have been undertaken, and the total Transport External Costs (TEC) of each calculated. As set out in WebTAG Unit A2.3, TEC refers to the sum of the trips multiplied by the costs.

129

4.11.33. Table 4-38 summarises the calculation of the TECs with and without dependent development for the three rail-based public transport options.

Table 4-38: Transport External Costs arising from dependent development (AM peak, 2031, all costs in 000’s minutes)

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

(A) Total TEC with dependent development and transport scheme 302,598 302,583 302,691

(B) Total TEC without dependent development and with transport scheme

302,404 302,344 302,333

(C) = (A) – (B) 194 239 359

(D) TEC of dependent development generated trips 178 252 330

Net residual impact on public transport users from existing land uses = (C) – (D)

16 -13 28

For comparison: total journey time saving for public transport users (without dependent development) in TEE

275 352 363

4.11.34. The net residual impact on public transport users from existing land uses varies by option. Overall, the residual impacts represent a small fraction of the journey time savings estimated for public transport users in the TEE calculation of user benefits.

4.11.35. The net external costs associated with the public transport links supporting the dependent development are therefore negligible when compared to the private and wider societal planning gains to be derived from the development.

4.12. The relationship between transport connectivity and density

4.12.1. In the GLA study Accessibility Employment Projections for London (SKM Colin Buchanan, 2013) the relationship between transport connectivity and employment density in London was calculated and used to forecast future changes in employment distribution.

4.12.2. Relationships were found for highways and public transport connectivity to employment and population measured as generalised time and clock time. A similar methodology to the above study has been applied to the East of Silvertown study area.

4.12.3. High density office employment in London is dependent upon the connectivity and capacity of the public transport network. Other sectors such as manufacturing and construction are highly road dependent. Population density increases in line with

130

improved access to jobs by public transport until the CAZ where residential use diminishes as other employment uses dominate. Outer London is much more reliant on road based connectivity than inner and central London.

Figure 4-2 Connectivity and employment/population density (2031 Reference Case)

Development impacts

4.12.4. The observed relationships between density and connectivity were used to predict the potential increase in density of homes and jobs in the PMAs under the four public transport options. It is estimated that the improvement in cross-river connectivity alone could lead to 6-11,000 new homes and 3-6,000 new jobs. The resulting growth in homes is concentrated in the riverside OAs and their immediate hinterland. The growth in jobs is split between central London, which benefits from a marginal improvement in access to the labour market, and local jobs in areas of population growth.

4.12.5. The connectivity modelling estimates the net effect on delivery of housing units and jobs. This incorporates the impacts of additional population on local jobs to service them. The net additional jobs and houses attributable to the project within this area are shown in Table 4-39.

4.12.6. Option B generates about 15 per cent more net housing and about 25 per cent more jobs then Option A within the Study Area boroughs in response to the higher quality public transport offer. Options C and D offer yet further public transport connectivity. Option C with the DLR extension connecting the Royal Docks to Barking generates most jobs and homes in Newham. Option D generates the most jobs and homes in Greenwich by providing a high quality public transport offer between Thamesmead and Woolwich.

131

Table 4-39 Study Area development impacts

Borough Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses

Newham 610 -580 750 -290 2,030 1,750 1,440 560

Barking and Dagenham

160 1,310 150 1,260 170 1,750 200 1,840

Havering 170 1,550 170 1,520 180 1,680 190 1,760

Greenwich 410 2,220 640 2,780 760 3,000 1,950 3,430

Bexley 290 2,000 350 2,200 330 2,480 480 2,510

TOTAL 1,640 6,500 2,060 7,470 3,470 10,660 4,260 10,100

4.12.7. The project is of more than local significance, however, and the analysis suggests there are two countervailing factors in operation beyond this immediate area:

• there are spillover positive effects as connectivity improvements extend to other parts of London

• there are displacement effects as the increased activity in the regeneration area prevents or delays economic activity elsewhere

4.12.8. The net impact of these two effects is set out in Table 4-40 for adjacent boroughs and the CAZ.

Table 4-40 Wider area development impacts

Borough Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses Jobs Houses

CAZ 1,430 0 630 0 2,160 0 760 0

Tower Hamlets 270 -620 160 -570 650 -500 470 -570

Southwark 0 330 -20 360 -10 330 20 360

Other 10 20 20 20 10 90 40 150

TOTAL 1,710 -270 790 -190 2,810 -80 1,290 -10

TOTAL across London

3,350 6,230 2,850 7,280 6,280 10,580 5,550 10,090

4.12.9. This shows that for job impacts, the spillover effects are significant for central London and Tower Hamlets but minimal elsewhere. However, for the CAZ, job impacts are extremely sensitive to small changes in public transport connectivity. The job impacts are more important under Option A than Option B due to the network effects of reconfiguring the DLR service patterns. Likewise the job impacts on the CAZ of Option

132

C, which offers direct DLR links from new areas, are much greater than Option D, which offers greater local connectivity with the tram.

4.12.10. For the expectation of new housing, the effects are much smaller as the displacement effect dominates overall. The positive exception is in Southwark where additional housing is stimulated by the connectivity gains. Tower Hamlets would see housing growth come forward more slowly as displacement effects prioritise better opportunities south of the river for house building resources.

4.13. Regeneration benefits

4.13.1. Building on the development impact analysis set out above, further high-level analysis has been undertaken to start to understand the spatial distribution of regeneration effects, their net contribution at the London-wide level and the economic value this represents to the capital. This goes beyond the standard WebTAG regeneration analysis as part of an attempt to align the strategic and economic cases, in line with the recommendations from the Transport Investment and Economic Performance (TIEP) research.

4.13.2. The study area represents the regeneration area for the East of Silvertown project: the London boroughs of Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Bexley and Havering, and the Royal Borough of Greenwich, as well as the CAZ and several inner London boroughs that are affected.

Cumulative development impacts

4.13.3. The cumulative estimate of homes and jobs is based on the sum of the net additional homes defined as dependent development in the areas immediately adjacent to the Gallions Reach crossing (see section 4.11) and the net homes and jobs derived from the connectivity-density calculations (see section 4.12). The latter figures exclude the Thamesmead and Gallions Reach PMAs to avoid double-counting.

133

Table 4-41 Cumulative development impacts

Borough Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Homes Jobs Homes Jobs Homes Jobs Homes Jobs

CAZ 0 1,430 0 1,350 0 2,160 0 760

Tower Hamlets (exc CAZ) -620 270 -510 620 -500 650 -520 470

Newham -770 610 5,240 310 15,450 1,020 14,570 400

Barking and Dagenham 1,310 160 1,690 200 1,750 170 1,840 200

Redbridge 50 10 400 630 100 10 140 40

Havering 1,550 170 1,800 80 1,680 180 1,760 190

Greenwich 1,670 410 4,650 940 4,670 760 4,920 1,950

Bexley 1,830 290 4,790 1,290 2,990 330 2,970 480

Southwark (exc CAZ) 330 0 320 -80 330 -10 360 20

Lewisham -30 0 -40 20 -10 0 10 0

TOTAL 5,320 3,350 18,340 5,360 26,460 5,270 26,050 4,510

Economic impact

4.13.4. The net housing and job impacts have been converted into an equivalent GVA effect, using the direct and indirect effects of new housing and GVA per job filled at the borough level. Table 4-42 summarises these impacts upon the London economy as a whole. Housing effects are discounted over a 30-year appraisal period, and GVA job effects are discounted over 10 years in line with HCA additionality guidance assumptions.

134

Table 4-42 Net housing and Gross Value Added jobs effects (NPV, £m, 2010 prices)

Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

Housing productive effect 750 2,700 3,980 3,910

Housing indirect employment effect 350 1,390 2,170 2,130

GVA jobs effect 1,110 2,250 2,550 1,690

Total 2,210 6,340 8,710 7,730

Comparison of alternative approaches

4.13.5. Assessing the economic impacts of the net additional housing and jobs represents an alternative method of appraising the four options.

4.13.6. Under the WebTAG transport user benefits and wider impacts appraisal framework, Option A represents the best value for money. This option deliver significant benefits to existing communities while the marginal cost of the public transport element is relatively low. Yet this option is not expected to make a significant contribution to housing growth and regeneration, and therefore the forecast of £2bn economic impacts is considerably lower than the value of the WebTAG user and wider benefits.

4.13.7. Seen from a development and regeneration perspective, Options C and D would support the highest growth in housing and jobs and as a result are forecast to have the largest economic impacts with a net contribution to London’s economy of over £7.5bn. Yet the marginal costs of these public transport schemes are much higher and are not justified by the benefits under the WebTAG transport user benefits and Wider Economic Impacts appraisal framework alone.

4.13.8. Option B has a lower marginal public transport cost than Options C and D, yet it could deliver significant housing and regeneration benefits. As such it is expected to produce a net contribution of over £6bn to London’s economy, a similar value to the transport user benefits and Wider Economic Impacts appraisal.

135

5. The Financial Case

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. The Financial Case sets out the project and ongoing operating costs and financing and funding arrangements to deliver the scheme.

5.2. Project costs

Cost estimates suggest that the total capital cost of the delivering the river crossings would be between £1bn and £3bn

5.2.1. Indicative cost estimates (capital and operational) have so far been produced for a long list of potential East of Silvertown options. A proportionate process has been used to assess the long list of options and produce a shorter list of the most feasible options which can be taken forward for more detailed analysis including modelling and engineering assessments. However, as there remain a number of options and combinations of options, it is not possible at this stage to present an Estimated Final Cost for the project.

5.2.2. The transport benefits delivered by a bridge or a tunnel are generally the same. For the purposes of this report, bridges are assumed but tunnels at either location could be introduced without materially impacting on the benefits. The incorporation of the public transport short list of options has resulted in four options to consider; A, B, C and D.

5.2.3. As set out in the previous sections and summarised in Table 5-1, a number of shortlisted options have been presented, which carry a total cost of between around £1bn and £3bn (2010 prices including optimism bias).

136

Table 5-1 Summary of capital and operating costs

Costs Cost basis Option A - Bus only

Option B – Bus + Short DLR

Option C – Bus + Long DLR

Option D – Bus + Tram

River crossing capital costs

Appraisal cost (2010 prices, including optimism bias)

1,000-2,150

2013 costs incl. risk and construction inflation but without optimism bias

550-1,250

Outturn costs 725-1,650

Public transport capital costs

Appraisal cost (2010 prices, including optimism bias)

50* 275-425 1,100-1,300

550-600

2013 costs incl. risk and construction inflation but without optimism bias

n/a 225-325 850-1,050 425-475

Outturn costs n/a 325-500 1,300-1,550

650-700

Operating costs

Estimated annual operating costs (2013 prices)

20-25 4-7

(+20-25 buses)

35-45

(+20-25 buses)

20-25

(+20-25 buses)

5.2.4. Section 4.2 contains further information on how these cost estimates have been derived. Capital and operating costs for all crossing options are presented consistently within the Option Assessment Report (Long List) and Option Assessment Report (Public Transport Interim List) and this business case, although the cost definitions between these documents are not the same. The OAR contains low and high cost estimates in 2013 prices. The business case documentation presents low and high cost estimates in 2010 prices with optimism bias (OB) of 66 per cent applied to land and infrastructure costs.

Risk allowance and optimism bias

Engineering assessments have informed the development of option costs 5.2.5. Engineering assessments have informed some, but not all, of these options. The costs

presented outline an estimate for construction including oncosts (e.g., design, general items, overheads, profits and testing), permanent land acquisition and Woolwich ferry infrastructure demolition in outturn prices (including opportunity and risk) in a price range (low to high). Moreover, an operation and maintenance cost (including lifecycle) is also presented.

5.2.6. Public transport costs have been taken from a number of sources including case studies of past examples, previous DLR extension feasibility studies and a previous transit studies. Prices exclude land costs beyond the immediate crossing allowance. The prices do generally include the cost of track, station upgrades, depots, rolling

137

stock, signalling and construction. The costs also account for marginal additional infrastructure costs. All prices are factored to 2013 prices by applying an ‘ALLCON - All Construction Tender Price Index’ conversion41. Operational costs have also been calculated based on current operating costs on the TfL transport networks.

5.2.7. In the appraisal an additional allowance has been made for Optimism Bias. This has been applied to all options at a rate of 66 per cent given the stage of project development. This is expected to reduce as the schemes are taken forward and become better defined.

5.2.8. Detailed cost estimates will follow once the combination of options have been shortlisted to an appropriate number (2~3 options) and more detailed modelling and engineering work has been undertaken.

Spend profile

The construction costs would be likely to arise between 2021 and 2025 5.2.9. It is too early in the assessment process to outline a breakdown and timeframe for

costs. However, assuming an opening year of 2025, it is expected that any option would be constructed over the period 2021 to 2025, and this has been used in the appraisal. Operating costs and revenue from users in the form of charges or fares has been applied for a 60 year period from 2025.

5.3. Funding

User charging and funding contributions from new development would form part of any funding package to enable the delivery of the new crossings

5.3.1. As with the question of how the new crossings would be financed, the means by which the crossings would be funded (i.e., the source of the funds to repay a concessionaire, bondholders, etc.) can only be answered when there is greater clarity around the preferred option. It is likely that the funding would come from a combination of sources.

5.3.2. A key part of the revenue-earning potential of the new crossings is road user charging. It is considered necessary to charge the crossings in order to manage user demand, and in particular to ensure that traffic volumes on the new crossings are not sufficient to cause any significant traffic or environmental problems in the communities on either side or for crossing users themselves, as to do so would negate the benefits of the investment. While traffic management is the primary purpose of charging, it clearly also delivers a revenue stream which would contribute to the repayment of the investment.

41 Note that 2014/15 indexes are not yet available

138

5.3.3. Further work will be undertaken to develop an appropriate charging strategy. This will include sensitivity tests, for example related to the Lower Thames Crossing options, which could have a significant impact on revenue at the Belvedere crossing.

5.3.4. Passengers on the public transport services using the crossings would also provide a revenue stream. Further work is needed to understand whether these revenues would be sufficient to generate a surplus above the operating costs, and what the net impact on TfL would be. Some of forecast patronage on the new orbital links is made of up passengers who are able to avoid longer radial routes through fare zones 2-3. While this may generate time and cost savings for these passengers and free up capacity on radial routes, the revenue impact of this re-routing may be negative.

5.3.5. Road user charging and passenger revenue are highly unlikely to cover the whole of the funding of the crossings, and other means of covering the costs would need to be considered.

5.3.6. Given the significant amount of development committed and planned for the local areas, there is potential for development related funding to be captured, either through existing mechanisms or by introducing new local levies in the areas benefitting from the investment. The scale of development supported by the crossings is summarised in section 4.13 of the economic case.

5.3.7. Other options include other governmental funding, on the basis that the scheme would generate economic benefits to the nation which cannot be fully captured by TfL.

5.3.8. In addition, TfL could also seek devolution of a proportion of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) revenues to London. London has 10% of England’s registered vehicles and devolution of a consistent proportion of VED would support the modernisation of London’s strategic road network, including the East of Silvertown project.

5.3.9. All these options will need to be further considered as the project progresses.

5.4. Financing

There is potential for the financing of the crossings to be through a privately financed solution

5.4.1. It is not possible to make any final decisions on the preferred financing arrangements until a preferred option has been selected and its capital and operational costs and associated revenues are known.

5.4.2. TfL could potentially use a privately financed solution to deliver the East of Silvertown river crossings project. The value of the scheme is large enough to attract interest from the markets and road, bridge and tunnel risks are well understood by financing markets which should ensure a competitive cost of capital.

5.4.3. A privately financed solution would see the private sector take on the responsibilities for design, construction and other risks of the project, in return for a series of payments by TfL.

5.4.4. Other financing options could include grant funding which is received from central and local government.

5.4.5. Alternatively, TfL could borrow the necessary money from a variety of sources using a combination of mechanisms, including bonds, commercial paper, loans for specific

139

projects from the European Investment Bank and the Public Works Loan Board. TfL’s borrowing is based on considerations including the cost of borrowing, market conditions and the level of flexibility offered.

5.4.6. Although the use of private finance may mean that the base projected cost of the scheme is greater for TfL than if it finances the scheme itself, the use of a privately financed solution has a number of advantages:

• Risk is effectively transferred to a private party who is best placed to manage it; • Total costs are minimised by transferring the responsibility to the private sector

for the design, construction and ongoing responsibility for the asset; and • There are greater opportunities for innovation through an outputs based contract.

5.4.7. There are also advantages for TfL in that repayment of private finance can be deferred until the scheme is operational, which frees up funds for investment in other schemes which may not be suitable candidates for a privately financed solution. Repayment of private finance can also be spread out over time, allowing TfL to use revenues generated from user charging to cover repayment charges (although charging levels and the impact on traffic behaviour needs to be considered).

140

6. The Commercial Case

6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. This section provides details on the commercial structure, procurement approach and accounting implications of the project.

6.2. Procurement strategy and sourcing options

6.2.1. The new river crossings are being promoted by TfL and will be developed through close working with the other stakeholders (outlined below), who are already aware of the project.

6.2.2. It is being promoted by TfL, the public sector body responsible for delivering transport services of all types in London, with an investment portfolio of £12bn.

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

• Environmental sustainability; • Supplier diversity; • Community benefits; • Skills and employment; • Sustainable freight; • Fair employment; and • Ethical Sourcing.

6.2.4. In compliance with the responsible procurement policy, all potential suppliers would be asked to consider these elements in their bid as part of the Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the design and build contract. Each appointed consultant or contractor would be subject to a supplier performance plan.

6.2.5. The project may be delivered using a privately financed solution which meets the objectives and constraints set out in the following table.

141

Table 6-1 Objectives and Constraints

6.3. Proposed commercial structure

Construction procurement/management

The crossings project has characteristics which make it a suitable candidate for delivery via a privately financed solution such as DBFM

6.3.1. While it has not yet been confirmed as the preferred approach, the project has characteristics which make it a suitable candidate for delivery via a privately financed solution e.g. a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) agreement. A private sector party would then be responsible for the financing of the project and undertaking the detailed design, construction and on-going maintenance of the new infrastructure for around 30 years (based on debt repayment profile and time to generate target shareholder return). At the end of the contract the asset would be handed back to TfL. Other delivery mechanisms, such as “traditional” design and build or a Regulatory model would also be considered.

6.3.2. Given the relationship of the East of Silvertown project to other river crossings and the wider London strategic and local road network, TfL may decide to retain control of setting of user charges and traffic network management at the new crossing. These operations may fall under existing contracts such as that which exists for the congestion charging scheme and The London Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC). The decision on the aspects TfL would control depend on a number of factors, including the modes provided as part of the crossing.

6.3.3. Any contracts over the threshold values would need to be competitively tendered via EU compliant means in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

Objectives – the solution must: Constraints – the solution must:

• Be affordable over the long-term

• Ensure integration of the crossing operations with the wider road transport operations

• Achieve value for money – ensuring that risk transfer is justified and worthwhile

• Have support from key internal and external stakeholders

• Match responsibilities with management and organisational capability

• Have strong confidence of delivery within the current market

• Achieve “off budget” status to meet affordability constraints

• Ensure TfL remains principal on charge levying to achieve favourable treatment on VAT on charges

• Ensure TfL retains control of charging strategy to achieve traffic management objectives

• Ensure TfL retains control of traffic management operations to meet provisions under the Traffic Management Act

• Consider integration with existing contractual arrangement where it makes sense operationally and is deemed value for money

142

Accounting implications

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

Procurement route

6.3.5. Any contracts for the East of Silvertown project would need to be competitively tendered via EU compliant means in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

TfL utilises supply chains from across the UK – work for new crossings would support many jobs outside of London

6.3.6. Although TfL undertakes procurement for projects implemented in the capital, the wider benefit to the UK is extensive, with over 60,000 jobs estimated to be supported by services TfL procures from outside of London. The construction of new river crossings would add to the pipeline of capital investment that supports jobs across the UK.

6.3.7. The procurement strategy for this stage of the project will be refined and improved as the scheme is further developed.

143

7. The Management Case

7.1. Introduction

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

7.2. Evidence of similar projects

TfL would make full use of best practice within the organisation and from industry

7.2.1. While the preferred option is not yet determined, the options include a number of similarities in terms of delivering a large highway crossing of the Thames, and some options include provision of rail alongside the highway.

7.2.2. TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing significant infrastructure projects. This ranges from modifications to existing road infrastructure (such as the Hammersmith flyover refurbishment) to building major new infrastructure.

7.2.3. Major schemes developed, promoted and implemented by TfL in recent years include the A23 Coulsdon By-Pass, a major programme of extensions to the DLR, the London Overground Network, the Emirates Air Line cable car and Crossrail. These projects have been progressed through the planning system using a range of routes including Transport and Works Act Orders (TWAO) and the Private Member’s Bill Process.

7.2.4. There is some experience with major highway projects in London, but none with tolled road bridges or tunnels, although TfL has extensive experience of user charging with the Central London Congestion Charging scheme. Moreover, the proposed Silvertown Tunnel project is recommended to be charged.

7.2.5. Therefore, much of TfL’s project development experience would be transferrable to this scheme, including support and advice from experienced promoters of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel project. Other promoters of major highway schemes and operators of similar projects would also be consulted, including Highways England and the operators of the Mersey and Tyne Tunnels.

7.3. Linkages

Programme linkages

The East of Silvertown crossings scheme has a link with the delivery of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel Project and both are part of a wider series of river crossings for London

7.3.1. The project is linked to the proposed Silvertown Tunnel project, which seeks to build a road tunnel that would provide resilience and congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel and support local regeneration. TfL is progressing proposals for the proposed Silvertown Tunnel through a Development Consent Order. A statutory consultation on the proposed Silvertown Tunnel was held between 5 October and 29 November 2015.

144

Key project assumptions

7.3.2. TfL would rely on user charging for the crossings as a means of managing traffic demand; this would also provide a source of funding for the project. TfL has a budget for planning and development stages up to securing powers and consents but does not have a budget for the main design and build costs.

7.3.3. In addition to user charging, TfL is considering delivering the project via a Private Finance Initiative, whereby the Contractor with private sector funding would be responsible for the detailed design, construction, financing and maintenance of the tunnel over a suitable concession period (typically 30 years).

7.3.4. The land for the potential Gallions Reach crossing is safeguarded and continuation of this has been identified as an external dependency for the delivery of a potential crossing at this location.

7.3.5. Consideration will be given as to whether safeguarding will be sought for the Belvedere-Rainham crossing location.

7.4. Powers to construct the project

Development Consent Order The river crossings East of Silvertown could be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project

7.4.1. The Secretary of State designated the proposed Silvertown Tunnel as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, and therefore TfL is developing a Development Consent Order application for that project.

7.4.2. It is TfL’s view that the Thames crossings to the east of Silvertown could also be considered nationally significant, for the important role they could play in allowing east London’s economy to grow, and due to the very important role the London’s economy plays in the wider UK, as outlined in the Strategic Case.

7.4.3. TfL could therefore request that crossings east of Silvertown be designated by the Secretary of State as schemes of national significance, allowing TfL to use the same powers process for these crossings as for the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. By using the same consenting route, TfL would be able to directly apply lessons learnt from the Silvertown project, and reduce planning risk.

145

7.5. Governance, organisational structure and roles

Internal governance

7.5.1. The East of Silvertown project has a Programme Board, chaired by the Managing Director of TfL Planning and attended by senior managers from across TfL, including representatives from Rail and Underground, Surface Transport and Corporate Finance. This board has been established to guide and oversee delivery of the project and the realisation of its benefits.

7.5.2. TfL has also appointed a Technical Sponsor River Crossings from Surface Transport to ensure Surface have a key oversight role throughout the planning stages of the project prior to future handover of the project for delivery.

7.5.3. Following Silvertown Tunnel’s work with Infrastructure UK on the Project Initiation Routemap, a similar approach would be followed for this project.

Independent peer review group

7.5.4. An Independent Peer Review Group (IPRG) would be established to provide independent expert scrutiny of the East of Silvertown project, initially regarding the selection of a preferred crossing option and to review the proposed ground investigation works.

7.5.5. The IPRG would remain in place to undertake reviews on technical and engineering matters at key stages during the design, procurement and delivery of the project.

Programme/Project Plan

7.5.6. Some key future milestones for the project are shown in Table 7-1 below.

Table 7-1 Key future project milestones

Milestone description Date

Public consultation Late 2015

Report to the Mayor on the outcome of the consultation

March 2016

Brief the next Mayor on the River Crossings programme and seek direction

May/June 2016

Assurance and approvals plan

Rigorous assurance processes would provide close scrutiny and challenge of risk management and decision-making throughout the project

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

7.5.8. Internal assurance is provided through Pathway (TfL’s project management methodology) project stage gates and/or peer reviews staffed by the sponsor and delivery personnel either from within the project or from a peer project. Underlying these stage gates are a number of assurance activities conducted by both TfL and the

146

suppliers and include activities such as design reviews, safety assessments, risk reviews, commercial assessments, estimate validation, material testing, site inspections and product testing.

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

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

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

7.5.12. The EEs are selected on the basis of their relevant experience and suitability to the project under review. Each review is covered by a Terms of Reference that sets the scope and the brief to the EE, who is procured from a TfL consultancy framework. The Terms of Reference is based on the Pathway IAR Lines of Enquiry, aimed at generating a comprehensive review. Each Line of Enquiry includes up to 20 detailed challenges, devised to match the maturity of the project at its particular point in its lifecycle.

7.5.13. The Lines of Enquiry were developed as part of the Corporate Gateway Approval Process (CGAP) in 2008, following a comprehensive benchmarking process that assessed the assurance regimes in other organisations and the Office of 3 Government Commerce who produced gateway processes and guidance (now part of the Cabinet Office). Some additions have been made since 2008, including more explicit challenges covering cost benchmarking following consultation with the Independent Investment Programme Advisory Group (IIPAG).

7.5.14. The IAR report is considered by appropriate bodies prior to seeking authorisation. For projects over £50m, the Finance and Policy Committee and Board are informed of the assurance reviews carried out.

7.5.15. IARs are conducted at key stages of the project:

• Initiation; • Option selection; • Pre-tender; • Contract award; • Project close out; • Benefits delivery; and • Annual review (where no other IAR would happen within 12 months).

7.5.16. The involvement of the IIPAG is determined on both a risk based approach and a project value threshold. The IIPAG reviews are normally commissioned on projects with a value of £50m or more. The IAR process is as detailed above and the IIPAG then attends the Gate Review Meeting once the EE Interim Report has been produced. The IIPAG then produces its own reports, which are submitted at the relevant approval

147

meetings alongside the PMO Report, based on its review of the IAR material and discussions at the final Gate Review Meeting.

7.6. Communications and stakeholder management

Summary of consultations to date

Public consultations carried out demonstrate there is support for new fixed river crossings at Gallions Reach and between Belvedere and Rainham

7.6.1. Since the publication of the MTS in 2010, there have been four non-statutory consultations held on the River Crossings programme. These have been held between February- March 2012, October 2012-February 2013, July-September 2014 and October-December 2014.

7.6.2. The February-March 2012 consultation presented options for a new tunnel at Silvertown and a new ferry at Gallions Reach. Over 90 per cent of the 4,000 people who responded agreed that there was a need for more river crossings between east and southeast London. Of the respondents, 80 per cent were in favour of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, with 60 per cent supporting the Gallions Reach ferry. Several key stakeholders as well as some other respondents stated that they would like to a see a fixed link at Gallions Reach either instead of a ferry, or replacing the ferry at some point in the future.

7.6.3. Between October 2012-February 2013 a second non-statutory consultation was held, which covered a wider package of options than the first. These were:

• A new tunnel at Silvertown • Replacement of the Woolwich Ferry at Woolwich • A ferry at Gallions Reach • A fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2021 • A fixed link at Gallions Reach by 2031.

7.6.4. This consultation proposed charging any new crossing introduced, as well as the Blackwall Tunnel, in order to manage traffic and to help fund the new crossings.

7.6.5. Around 6,400 responses were received, with over 70 per cent support for each of the fixed link options, 51 per cent for a new ferry at Woolwich and 52 per cent for a new ferry at Gallions Reach. Boroughs, business groups and members of the public generally acknowledged the need for new crossings, although there were differing views on how to approach this.

7.6.6. The third consultation, held between July and September 2014, related to proposals for crossings east of Silvertown. These were:

• A new ferry at Woolwich • A ferry at Gallions Reach • A bridge at Gallions Reach • A bridge at Belvedere.

148

7.6.7. Around 7,500 responses were received to this consultation, with over 90 per cent of respondents agreeing that there was a need for new river crossings in east London. There was varying levels of support for the individual proposals – 37 per cent supported a new ferry at Woolwich, 21 per cent supported a ferry at Gallions Reach, 80 per cent supported a bridge at Gallions Reach and 60 per cent supported a bridge at Belvedere.

7.6.8. A fourth river crossings consultation was held between October and December 2014, relating specifically to proposals for a new tunnel at Silvertown.

A Stakeholder Strategy has been prepared for the project Internal stakeholders

7.6.9. The Project Manager for the East of Silvertown project is responsible for keeping internal stakeholders appropriately engaged and informed. Surface Transport have appointed a senior shadow sponsor, responsible for ensuring the early involvement of Surface Transport in the development of the project.

External stakeholders

7.6.10. A Stakeholder Engagement Lead will be appointed for the project. A Stakeholder Engagement Strategy will also be prepared for the project to provide a brief on the objectives of the stakeholder engagement, target audience and methodology.

7.6.11. As described above, TfL has carried out three non-statutory consultations on the east London River Crossings Programme. For the consultations, stakeholders were identified as belonging to several broad groups: • Statutory Stakeholders, comprising the Highways Agency, the Environment

Agency, the Port of London Authority, the Crown Estates and the Marine Management Organisation;

• Affected boroughs, comprising the elected members and officers in the London Borough of Newham, the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, the London Borough of Bexley and the London Borough of Havering;

• Interested local authorities, comprising the elected members and officers of all other London boroughs, the surrounding District, County and Unitary authorities, the elected members of the London Assembly, local Members of Parliament, London TravelWatch, the Local Government Ombudsman and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation;

• National trade associations and interest groups, such as Emergency Services, Motorists organisations (AA, RAC, Green Flag), the Confederation of Passenger Transport, the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the National Motorcycle Council, the London Cycling Campaign, Living Streets, the Institute of Advanced Motorists, English Heritage, Sustrans, Road Peace, BIDS, London First, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and Environmental Groups; and

• Local networks and groups (within the affected boroughs), comprising residents, businesses, public service institutions (schools, hospitals, etc.), pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, public transport users, people with disabilities, people with mobility issues (including older people), people who work, deliver or collect in the area and national and international businesses that rely on transportation.

149

7.6.12. There will be ongoing liaison with these stakeholders in relation to the project, and mapping of views and requirements and where these could conflict.

7.6.13. A Stakeholder Strategy has been prepared by TfL, and identifies the statutory and other stakeholders, and sets out how they will be engaged as the project progresses including sharing of information, coordination and cooperation arrangement.

7.6.14. A document library has been created to store and share project related documents.

Programme/Project reporting TfL would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting processes

7.6.15. TfL would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting processes that align with the Project governance framework, integrating key stakeholder requirements, facilitating continuous monitoring, and incorporating accurate performance measurement. The purpose is to provide accurate project information in a timely way to ensure well informed decisions are made and appropriate action is taken.

7.6.16. The project management model would be designed to deliver a robust reporting regime, including:

• governance meetings, which form part of the reporting process as the forum where performance issues are raised, possible mitigation is discussed and key decisions required are made; and

• reporting requirements that would be fully defined, together with content requirements, target audience and timing.

7.7. Implementation of work streams

7.7.1. There are a number of different workstreams for the project, and responsibilities and resources for each of these have been identified.

• Engineering design and technical studies; • Transport assessment and traffic modelling; • Environmental assessment; • Funding and procurement; • Contract management; • Commercial and Legal; • Land assembly; • Risk management strategy; • Monitoring and evaluation • Sponsorship and governance; and • Project management.

150

8. Conclusion

8.1. Conclusion

8.1.1. The recommendation of this Strategic Outline Business Case is that the current work on options appraisal continues, such that shortlisting of feasible options continues and the preferred multi-modal packages and a preferred solution is identified and progressed.

8.1.2. In particular, the work undertaken has highlighted several potential combinations of schemes and assessed their ability to meet the objectives, and their economic and other impacts. A key component of any final decision will be the views of the public and affected stakeholders, and therefore a consultation on the new information contained within this report will allow these options to be considered more fully and allow decisions on narrowing the options further to be taken.

8.1.3. The responses to the five key questions raised in the guidance can be summarised as follows:

• there is a clear robust case for change in the form of new river crossings in east London, to address the lack of connectivity across the Thames and to cater for the needs of future economic growth. This ‘strategic case’ is closely related to national, London-wide and local road policy objectives, with a particular reference to the London Plan and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

• the analysis demonstrates that the project is excellent value for money. Several options are under consideration, and four public transport options considered in this report show a very high potential net present value, and it is a project with the potential for a contribution to its costs from road user charges and passengers fares.

• options for procurement of the crossings have been identified – the report sets out some procurement and commercial options, which would be developed further when the options are defined.

• the project is financially affordable – the ‘financial case’; the analysis sets out the range of likely project costs, describes the possible private funding mechanisms available to deliver the scheme and potential financing arrangements.

• the project is achievable - the ‘management case’ sets out a clear governance, process and programme for the further development of the project by TfL, an authority with a very successful experience and record in major project delivery.

8.1.4. Following the conclusion of the current work on the options and consultation on the contents, a more detailed Strategic Outline Business Case will be prepared to support any decisions on the preferred option(s), based on the material contained within this report.

8.1.5. Delivery of the project could be aided, and risks reduced, if crossings of the Thames east of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel were to be designated Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

151

152