Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business...

152
Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings Strategic Outline Business Case Date: November 2015 Version: Final

Transcript of Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business...

Page 1: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

Gallions Reach and Belvedere River Crossings

Strategic Outline Business Case

Date: November 2015

Version: Final

Page 2: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

2

Page 3: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

3

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

Page 4: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

4

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

Page 5: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

5

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.

Page 6: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

6

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.

Page 7: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

7

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.

Page 8: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

8

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

Page 9: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

9

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

Page 10: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

10

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

Page 11: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

11

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.

Page 12: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

12

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

Page 13: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

13

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.

Page 14: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

14

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

Page 15: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

15

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.

Page 16: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

16

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

Page 17: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

17

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.

Page 18: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

18

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.

Page 19: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

19

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

Page 20: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

20

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.p

df accessed 5 September 2014 7 See https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag accessed 5 September 2014

Page 21: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

21

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

Page 22: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

22

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.

Page 23: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

23

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

Page 24: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

24

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.

Page 25: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

25

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

Page 26: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

26

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.

Page 27: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

27

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.

Page 28: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

28

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.

Page 29: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

29

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

Page 30: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

30

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.

Page 31: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

31

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.

Page 32: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

32

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

Page 33: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

33

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.

Page 34: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

34

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

Page 35: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

35

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.

Page 36: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

36

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.

Page 37: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

37

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.

Page 38: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

38

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

Page 39: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

39

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

Page 40: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

40

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

Page 41: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

41

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

Page 42: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

42

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.

Page 43: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

43

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.

Page 44: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

44

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.

Page 45: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

45

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.

Page 46: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

46

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.

Page 47: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

47

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.

Page 48: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

48

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

Page 49: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

49

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

Page 50: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

50

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

Page 51: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

51

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.

Page 52: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

52

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.

Page 53: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

53

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

Page 54: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

54

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

Page 55: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

55

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

Page 56: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

56

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

Page 57: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

57

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

Page 58: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

58

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.

Page 59: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

59

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.

Page 60: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

60

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.

Page 61: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

61

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.

Page 62: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

62

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).

Page 63: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

63

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

Page 64: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

64

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.

Page 65: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

65

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.

Page 66: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

66

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.

Page 67: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

67

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.

Page 68: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

68

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

Page 69: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

69

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).

Page 70: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

70

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.

Page 71: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

71

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.

Page 72: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

72

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

Page 73: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

73

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.

Page 74: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

74

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.

Page 75: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

75

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.

Page 76: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

76

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.

Page 77: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

77

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

Page 78: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

78

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.

Page 79: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

79

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

Page 80: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

80

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).

Page 81: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

81

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.

Page 82: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

82

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.

Page 83: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

83

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

Page 84: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

84

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

Page 85: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

85

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

Page 86: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

86

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.

Page 87: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

87

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)

Page 88: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

88

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

Page 89: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

89

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.

Page 90: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

90

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

Page 91: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

91

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’.

Page 92: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

92

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

Page 93: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

93

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).

Page 94: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

94

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.

Page 95: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

95

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

Page 96: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

96

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

Page 97: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

97

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

Page 98: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

98

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

Page 99: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

99

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.

Page 100: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

100

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 tunnel

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.

Page 101: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

101

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.

Page 102: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

102

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

Page 103: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

103

(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

Page 104: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

104

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.

Page 105: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

105

(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)

Page 106: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

106

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)

Page 107: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

107

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)

Page 108: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

108

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.

Page 109: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

109

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.

Page 110: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

110

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.

Page 111: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

111

Table 4-14 Public accounts – Option B (£m)

Table 4-15 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits – Option B (£m)

Page 112: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

112

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)

Page 113: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

113

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)

Page 114: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

114

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.

Page 115: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

115

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.

Page 116: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

116

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%

Page 117: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

117

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.

Page 118: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

118

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

Page 119: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

119

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.

Page 120: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

120

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

Page 121: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

121

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

Page 122: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

122

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

Page 123: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

123

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.

Page 124: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

124

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

Page 125: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

125

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

Page 126: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

126

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.

Page 127: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

127

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

Page 128: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

128

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

Page 129: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

129

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.

Page 130: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

130

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

Page 131: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

131

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.

Page 132: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

132

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

Page 133: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

133

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.

Page 134: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

134

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.

Page 135: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

135

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.

Page 136: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

136

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).

Page 137: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

137

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

Page 138: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

138

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

Page 139: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

139

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

Page 140: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

140

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).

Page 141: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

141

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.

Page 142: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

142

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

Page 143: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

143

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.

Page 144: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

144

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.

Page 145: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

145

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.

Page 146: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

146

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

Page 147: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

147

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

Page 148: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

148

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.

Page 149: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

149

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.

Page 150: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

150

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.

Page 151: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

151

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.

Page 152: Strategic Outline Business Case - TfL Consultations · 1.1.5. This is a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) which is presented in accordance with the DfT’s Business Case Guidance,

152