Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms ... Line... · NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO BATTERSEA AND NINE ELMS: FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY Final Report December

NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO BATTERSEA AND NINE ELMS: FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY

Final Report

December 2008

Prepared for: Prepared by:

REO (Power Station) Ltd 188 Kirtling Street London SW8 5BN

Steer Davies Gleave 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 (0)20 7919 8500 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Final Report

P:\Projects\7400s\7466\207466-H\Outputs\Final Report\Final version to Client\Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms - Feasibility Study and Business Case Methodology - Final Report.doc

Contents

Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 5

Summary 5

2. PATRONAGE FORECASTS 17

Proposed Approach to Patronage Forecasting 17

Trip Generation for Battersea Power Station & Nine Elms Corridor 18

Background Trips 19

Initial Patronage Estimation (to inform Design Parameters) 19

3. SCHEME DEVELOPMENT 22

Tunnel Alignments 31

Ventilation and Evacuation 32

Summary Approach to Construction 33

Summary Construction Programme 34

4. TRAIN OPERATIONS 39

Existing Service Pattern 39

Tube Lines Service Improvement 40

Proposed Partial Separation of the Northern Line 41

Runtimes 42

Capacity of Battersea Terminus 45

Fleet Requirements 45

5. COST ESTIMATES 48

Capital Costs by Route Option 48

Operating Costs 50

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS 51

Overview of Key Environmental Considerations and Impacts 51

Summary of Environmental Considerations & Preliminary Assessment of Impacts54

Conclusions of Preliminary Environmental Assessment 58

7. BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY 61

Scenarios to Be Tested 61

Costs 62

Journey Time Benefits and Revenues 62

Business Case Appraisal Framework 63

Consideration of Wider Economic Benefits 63

8. PROJECT RISKS 64

Final Report


2

Process to Date 64

9. NEXT STEPS 66

Forward Programme of Scheme Development 66

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Vauxhall/North East Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area 7

Figure 1.2 Northern Line Extension Options 10

Figure 1.3 Existing PTAL 15

Figure 1.4 PTAL with Tube Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms (option 2 shown) 15

Figure 3.1 Options for Location of Connection at Kennington 27

Figure 3.2 Potential Nine Elms Station Locations 29

Figure 3.3 Summary estimated construction programme: Route Option 1 35



Figure 4.1 Existing Northern Line Service Pattern AM and PM peak 39

Figure 4.2 Existing Northern Line Service Pattern off-peak 40

Figure 4.3 2012 Proposed Service Improvement with new signalling AM and PM peak 41

Figure 4.4 Partial Serparation of the Northern Line AM AND PM Peak 42

Figure 9.1 Provisional TWAO Programme 67

TABLES

Table 1.1 Work Areas/Lead Consultants

Table 1.2 Summary of capital Cost Estimates

Table 2.1 Proposed Land-use

Table 2.2 Assumed Land-use for Battersea power station and 2-way trips (daily)

Table 2.3 Assumed Land-use for Nine Elms Corridor and 2-way trips (excluding BPS)

Final Report


Contents

Table 2.4 Battersea Station Peak Flows - Option 1

Table 2.5 Battersea / Nine Elms Stations Peak Hour Flows - Option 2

Table 2.6 Battersea / Vauxhall Stations Peak Hour flows - Option 3

Table 2.7 Split between Northern and Victoria Lines (Census 2001)

Table 2.8 Victoria Line Interchange at Vauxhall Peak Hour

Table 4.1 Kennington To Battersea Runtime

Table 4.2 Battersea to Kennington Runtime

Table 4.3 Kennington To Battersea via Nine Elms Runtime

Table 4.4 Battersea to Kennington Via Nine Elms Runtime

Table 4.5 Kennington To Battersea Via Vauxhall Runtime

Table 4.6 Battersea to Kennington Via Vauxhall Runtime

Table 4.7 Battersea Terminus Layover

Table 4.8 Kennington / Battersea Fleet Requirements

Table 4.9 Kennington / Nine Elms / Battersea Fleet Requirements

Table 4.10 Kennington / Vauxhall / Battersea Fleet Requirements

Table 5.1 Summary of Cost Estimates

APPENDICES

A RESIDUAL ISSUES REGISTER

B BATTERSEA STATION AND CROSSOVER WORKING ASSUMPTION

Final Report


5

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Summary

1.1 The Greater London Authority (GLA) is currently developing an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for Vauxhall / Nine Elms and North East Battersea (VNEB) in order to deliver a comprehensive framework for the development of the OA. The Battersea Power Station (BPS) site is located within the VNEB OA. The VNEB OA is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The draft OAPF is expected to be complete by March 2009.

1.2 The VNEB OA is in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The CAZ contains a cluster of vitally important activities such as financial and business services sector, retail, tourism, media and government offices. The London Plan seeks to ensure that the diverse, dynamic and innovative nature of the area is built on.

1.3 Policy 5G.2 states that the Mayor and boroughs will identify and bring forward capacity through redevelopment within appropriate quarters of the CAZ, through development and redevelopment in Opportunity and Intensification Areas.

1.4 BPS is a key regeneration site located in the north west corner of the OA. Much of the OA suffers from poor public transport accessibility and weak linkages to the surrounding area.

1.5 Excellent transport links are key to the success of the CAZ, with improved public transport capacity therefore fundamental to accommodating growth in the OA, which is why rapid transit type solutions are being considered for the OAPF.

1.6 A number of development scenarios using the baselines set out in the London Plan Consolidated (2008) have been developed. These are being used by the OAPF team to test development capacity in the Opportunity Area and on the inner and central London transport network as a whole and the level of transport intervention required to support each. The scenarios are as follows:

Scenario 1 Low density residential - 8,000 jobs and 4,200 homes

Scenario 2 Medium density residential - 8,000 jobs and 8,500 homes

Scenario 3 High density residential - 8,000 jobs and 16,000 homes

Scenario 4 - High density residential + retail destination - 12,000 jobs and 16,750 homes

Scenario 5 High density residential + retail + office destination - 27,000 jobs and 16,750 homes

Final Report


7

FIGURE 1.1 VAUXHALL/NORTH EAST BATTERSEA (VNEB) OPPORTUNITY AREA

Final Report


8

1.7 The large-scale development of the Battersea Power Station site proposed by Treasury Holdings Ltd (THL) and the more extensive land use scenarios with high levels of development in the VNEB OA can be achieved only if there is a step change in public transport accessibility and capacity.

1.8 As part of Steer Davies Gleaves (SDG) work for THL, SDG developed tram and tube options to serve the OA. The SDG report Outline Feasibility Studies and Business Cases for Tram and Tube Options (February 2008) reviewed tram and tube options to serve the area.

1.9 This study concluded that an extension of the Northern Line (Charing Cross Branch) from Kennington to Battersea Power Station is the only practical means of providing the required level of public transport accessibility to support both the proposed level of development of the BPS site and high levels of development in the OA.

1.10 As part of the necessary preparation in advance of a proposed Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) submission in 2010, THL commissioned the following team of specialist consultants jointly to prepare a preliminary feasibility study and business case to assess the three tube extension options.

TABLE 1.1 WORK AREAS/LEAD CONSULTANTS

Work Area Lead Consultant

Programme Management Steer Davies Gleave (SDG)

Engineering Feasibility / Station Architecture Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB)

Business Case Steer Davies Gleave (SDG)

Transport Planning / Rail Operations Steer Davies Gleave (SDG)

Environmental Assessment URS Corporation Ltd (URS)

Planning DP9 Planning Consultants (DP9)

1.11 SDG has provided Programme Management services to support the development of the preliminary feasibility study and business case. The SDG Programme Management team have been responsible for facilitating the interfaces and the coordination of activities across all the consultant teams.

1.12 London Underground Limited (LUL) has also provided engineering and operational planning support to the consultant team through representatives from LUs Engineering and Strategy & Service Development directorates. Atkins and Bircham Dyson Bell are also advising the team on engineering and legal/TWAO aspects respectively.

1.13 The feasibility study and business case work considered three route options for the extension:

1. Direct to Battersea Power Station

2. To Battersea Power Station via a new station in the Nine Elms area

3. To Battersea Power Station via a new interchange station at Vauxhall

Final Report


9

1.14 The three tube alignment options are illustrated in Figure 1.2.

Final Report


10

FIGURE 1.2 NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION OPTIONS

Final Report


11

1.15 This Final Report forms the third deliverable of the overall programme of works following issue of the Inception and Interim Reports in July and October 2008 respectively.

1.16 This report should be read in conjunction with both the Parsons Brinckerhoff Feasibility Report, December 2008 (PB Ref UMD90388A/0039/03) and the URS Preliminary Environmental Assessment Final Report, Issue 5, December 2008 (URS Ref: 49315981).

Business Case

1.17 It should be noted that the preliminary business case (Section 7) has yet to be completed as this is dependent on modelling and forecasting work commissioned by TfL from SKM as part of the development of the Opportunity Area Planning Framework. Results from this modelling are required as inputs to the business case appraisal for the tube extension. Significant delays to the programme for this modelling work now mean that final outputs are not expected from SKM until January 2009. The business case will then be completed in February/March 2009 and a separate SDG report will be issued covering the Business Case.

1.18 This business case will be prepared for the high density development scenario (27,000 jobs and 16,750 homes) which is the most consistent (in terms of order of magnitude) with the current development proposals at BPS.

Feasibility Study

1.19 The feasibility study undertaken by Parsons Brinckerhoff was structured in three phases, which sought, in turn to: identify critical design issues leading to possible variants of each option; narrow down a list of possible variants, ideally to a working assumption for each route option; and finally to develop the working assumption sufficiently to undertake the preliminary feasibility study and business case.

1.20 In practice, various alternative options remain, which have been neither ruled-out completely, nor adopted as the basis for completing the preliminary feasibility study. These options could lead to a final specification with lower cost and risk and should therefore be revisited at the next stage of scheme development. These issues are included as part of the next steps identified in the final chapter of this report.

1.21 The feasibility study concluded that the extension is feasible. It identified a range of critical issues with ensuing possible design variants but no insuperable obstacles. These issues are:

Battersea Station and Cross-Over Configuration: The sensitive Thames Water ring main constrains the site for the station and crossover to the east. A wide range of possible options (9 distinct configurations) have been considered for the purposes of fitting both the station and crossover within the site as discussed in section 3.7. The option that has been developed as a working assumption has the crossover to the east of an island platform with platform edges curving in towards the crossover. Both station and crossover are proposed to be constructed within a box excavation. The

Final Report


12

current crossover is a relatively long arrangement to maximise train speed and this requires the onward running tunnels to be of enlarged diameter as they enter the box. Whilst the adequate operational performance of this option remains to be demonstrated, LUL have indicated that with a well managed stepping back operation 28tph should be achievable. Possible opportunities to shorten the length of the crossover and maximise the operational capacity should be reviewed at the next stage of design whilst ensuring adequate reversing capacity.

Connections at Kennington: Various possibilities have been considered for connecting with the existing tunnels at Kennington, including junctions to both the inside and outside of the turn-around loop and with the cross-over tunnels between the Charing Cross and City branches. The latter option was not adopted (but not ruled out) because of the short length of those tunnels, which meant that the level of detailed investigation and design required to demonstrate feasibility would be impractical in a preliminary feasibility study. Connections to the inside of the loop posed difficulties in aligning and constructing the tunnels on approach. The option adopted for completing the preliminary feasibility study is therefore step-plate junctions to the outside of the straight sections at the root of the turn-around loop. These would be constructed around the existing tunnels, requiring only a series of short possessions to break in and install the turnouts. It is thought that some track realignment and removal of cant will be required in the adjacent running tunnels, which could be undertaken during normal engineering hours.

Location of Nine Elms Station (Route Option 2 only): Several possible sites have been identified, including the existing Sainsburys supermarket car park site on Wandsworth Road, the Travis Perkins builders merchants yard to the east of that and on the corners of both the Flower Market and New Covent Garden Market. Alignments appear to be achievable to reach each of these locations and to retain planning flexibility, therefore, none of these locations have been firmly ruled out at this stage. A station location at the Sainsburys site (on land owned by New Covent Garden and Sainsburys) has been used as a working assumption, however, and the feasibility study was taken forward on that basis.

Potential Provision of Integrated Station at Vauxhall (Route Option 3 only): A wide range of significant obstacles have been noted in relation to the implementation of the interchange station at Vauxhall which defines Route Option 3. These relate to many factors including engineering feasibility, ground conditions, compliance with standards, cost, operations and transport planning. A possible configuration at Vauxhall station has been developed and costed. The working assumption is a new station located immediately to the south of the existing station and consists of basement-level mined station tunnels linking to the existing Victoria Line ticket hall, which would be expanded and improved.

Alignments: Alignments have been established for all three route options. In some cases it would be optimal to tunnel under the Oval cricket ground near Kennington and avoiding the Oval would introduce sub-standard curvature to the track. Although this would not be severe enough to contravene standards, the increased lifetime maintenance costs must be considered due to wheel/train interface between train and track. Therefore, the working assumption is for alignments under the Oval where this

Final Report


13

is optimal for the route. Feasible horizontal and vertical alignments are presented in the Parsons Brinckerhoff Feasibility Report.

Train operations and Capacity of Battersea as Terminus: The incorporation of an extension to Battersea into likely future service patterns for the Northern Line has been considered. As a result, it is not thought that the extension to Battersea is dependent on any aspect of the possible future developments of the service pattern. With no trains being timetabled to turn at Kennington, the need to turn around the 28 trains per hour associated with the proposed Northern Line Separation at Battersea is a key point of specification for the scheme, as is keeping the Kennington Loop operational for emergencies and service recovery.

Environmental Constraints

1.22 A Preliminary Environmental Assessment has been undertaken by URS which has identified and mapped the key environmental considerations throughout the implementation and operation of this proposed scheme and to undertake a preliminary Environmental Assessment of anticipated environmental and socio-economic impacts of the route options.

1.23 Given that this is an underground scheme, other than geological constraints, these are thought to be mostly relevant to the temporary and permanent surface structures such as stations, access shafts and construction access. Consideration has also been given to the environmental impacts of construction (and spoil removal in particular). As with the engineering feasibility study, no showstoppers have been identified to date.

1.24 However, the location of construction access shafts and permanent ventilation/intervention shafts has been identified as a critical issue in terms of approvability on environmental grounds. It is expected that optimal locations of shaft heads, in terms of environmental and engineering impact, should be considered in detail at the outset of the next stage of scheme development. Alignments might have to be adjusted to accommodate these. This will need to be discussed with the LFEPA.

1.25 The impacts associated with operational noise and vibration during operations is also expected to be a key issue and further study will be required, as well as likely physical mitigation measures.

1.26 In summary, the Preliminary Environmental Assessment, has concluded that Option 2 (via a new station in Nine Elms) is the least environmentally sensitive option, and Option 3 (via Vauxhall) is the most environmentally sensitive option.

Risk Management

1.27 An initial risk register was established at inception and has since been reviewed. An in-depth risk workshop was held on Thursday 18th September 2008, which was attended by THL, representatives from the consulting team, including URS, SDG, PB (and its subcontractors) and representatives of LUL.

1.28 A second risk workshop was then held on 10th October 2008, with the same group but a wider attendance from LUL. This workshop took account of the feasibility studys initial conclusions on working assumptions, including horizontal and vertical alignments and

Final Report


14

station arrangements. The risk register was further developed to incorporate the results of this workshop.

1.29 The current programme has detailed feasibility study and business case appraisal during 2009 with a TWAO application in early 2010, a public inquiry in late 2010, construction from 2012 to 2015 and earliest possible train/passenger operations from mid 2015.

Cost Estimates

1.30 Cost estimates have been prepared by Corderoy for PB, for each of the three route options to a confidence level of 30% for Routes 1 & 2 and 40% for Route 3. Cost estimates are detailed in section 5 of this report and are summarised below:

TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

m

Route 1 Kennington Battersea direct 426

Route 2 Via Nine Elms 506

Route 3 Via Vauxhall 680

Final Report


15

Transport Improvements

1.31 The anticipated improvement in public transport accessibility levels (PTAL) as a result of the proposed extension of the Northern Line is illustrated by the PTALs in Figures 1.3 (existing) and 1.4 (with Northern Line, Option 2 extension) below.

FIGURE 1.3 EXISTING PTAL

FIGURE 1.4 PTAL WITH TUBE EXTENSION TO BATTERSEA & NINE ELMS (OPTION 2 SHOWN)

Final Report


16

1.32 Figures 1.3 and 1.4 show how the tube station will dramatically improve the PTAL particularly in the central and western parts of the OAPF. High PTALS will support the scale of development proposed by THL and the high density scenarios being considered by the OAPF.

Final Report


17

2. PATRONAGE FORECASTS

Proposed Approach to Patronage Forecasting

2.1 SKM has been commissioned by TfL, (jointly funded by THL and Ballymore) to undertake modelling work in support of the Nine Elms OAPF.

2.2 This work is being undertaken using a modelling suite comprising the LTS Model, a Railplan model of public transport and a Saturn highway model.

2.3 Forecasts are being undertaken for 5 different demand growth scenarios, based on different development assumptions for the Nine Elms corridor. The modelling of Scenario 5, with the highest level of assumed development, will be undertaken separately with each of the three proposed options for a Northern Line tube extension from Kennington to Battersea Power Station represented. Steer Davies Gleave is liaising with SKM on the specification of these model runs.

2.4 It has been agreed with SKM that a Reference Case do-minimum scenario will also be modelled for comparison, which excludes the extension of the Northern Line to Battersea while still incorporating the Scenario 5 development assumptions, but does include a reasonable assumption as to the development of existing transport modes in the light of this demand growth. (i.e. increased frequency and capacity of local bus services).

2.5 The format of outputs from these model runs has been agreed with SKM and it is envisaged that these will include (in addition to material needed for the business case appraisal):

Tube station entry/exit/interchange matrices for the modelled periods; Link flow reports for the tube network (difference with and without tube extension)

and the Northern and Victoria Lines in particular; and

Difference plots of the demand impact across the wider network

2.6 This will be reviewed and critiqued by Steer Davies Gleaves transport planners before being presented in graphical and tabular form.

2.7 Using appropriate annualisation factors, overall forecast impacts on annual bus and tube patronage will be derived.

2.8 In advance of the results from the SKM modeling, SDG has developed preliminary station demand estimates to inform PBs initial spatial layout planning for the various station options. AM/PM peak hour demand estimates have been developed for the following:

Battersea station entry/exit flows (all 3 tube options) Nine Elms station (for option 2) Vauxhall (Northern Line) interchange flows (for option 3)

Final Report


18

Trip Generation for Battersea Power Station & Nine Elms Corridor

2.9 For the purpose of this initial trip generation exercise, the high density scenario 5 (27,000 jobs and 16,750 homes) has been considered to reflect the size of the proposed development on the BPS site. The development would comprise high density residential and also retail and office destination development.

2.10 Table 2.1 describes the land-use that has been assumed for each for the purpose of this assessment. Nine Elms corridor would be a mix of mainly residential and office, whilst the BPS development would be more of a mixed use development with leisure, hotel, large retail, office and also few residential units.

TABLE 2.1 PROPOSED LAND-USE

Battersea Power

Station Nine Elms Corridor Total Option 5

Employment (jobs) 17,000 10,000 27,000

Visitors (people per day)

45,600 - 45,600

Residential units 3,000 13,750 16,750

2.11 The BPS development is assumed to be more mixed use, so each land-use has been further broken down into type of employment to indicate the impact that this would have on the daily profile for trips and the peaks.

2.12 TRAVL has been used to obtain trip rates for each type of Land-use and daily profiles.

TABLE 2.2 ASSUMED LAND-USE FOR BATTERSEA POWER STATION AND 2-WAY TRIPS (DAILY)

Land-use Units Employment Visitors Total

(2-way trips)

Leisure 450 2,250 5,400

Cultural 380 2,500 5,760

Office 12,600 1,070 23,560 *

Hotel 500 400 600 3,000

Retail 3,150 38,000 44,300 **

Residential 3,000 18,000

Totals (Rounded) - 17,000 44,500 100,000

* Assuming 85% staff occupancy for offices. It is assumed that other land-uses have 100% staff occupancy.

** Assuming 50% reduction in Retail visitors from 37,981 due to chain trips.

2.13 The rest of the Nine Elms corridor on the contrary would be mix of mainly residential units with some offices. Table 2.3 shows the land-use for Nine Elms corridor and total 2-way

Final Report


19

trips that it would be assumed to generate.

TABLE 2.3 ASSUMED LAND-USE FOR NINE ELMS CORRIDOR AND 2-WAY TRIPS (EXCLUDING BPS)

Land-use Units

Employment Visitors Total

(2-way trips)

Residential 13,750 - - 82,500

Office - 10,000 - 17,000

Totals 13,750 10,000 - 99,500

Background Trips

2.14 With the introduction of the tube, it is likely that there would be a change in the existing mode share for the wards that are in vicinity of the BPS development, thus generating additional demand for the proposed tube stations in addition to that generated by the development proposals.

2.15 It has been assumed that there would be a shift from bus, car and rail modes. This would result in 17,000 additional 2-way trips. Equating to 2,500 total additional trips in and out of the station at Battersea both in the AM and PM peak hours.

2.16 However for the option with intermediate station at Nine Elms, the wards in the catchment already have access to other Northern Line stations Oval, Stockwell and Vauxhall. Hence a new station might not have a significant impact on existing mode share. However, the shorter walk times / proximity to the new station at Nine Elms would make the new station more attractive for existing tube users and bus passengers.

2.17 This would result in an additional demand of 5,000 passengers at Nine Elms station in addition to those from the new development. This would equate to 1,000 total additional trips in and out of Nine Elms station both in the AM and PM peak hours. The same number of additional trips would be included in Vauxhall demand in option 3.

Initial Patronage Estimation (to inform Design Parameters)

2.18 The following station demand forecasts are based on an estimated tube mode share of 39% assumed in the initial SDG Outline Business Case (February 2008),

2.19 The estimated distribution of trips between Battersea, Nine Elms and Vauxhall stations has been based on an initial assessment of the likely catchment area for each station and has assumed the following:

Option 1 Assumed that Battersea station would attract 95% of BPS development tube trips and 65% of tube trips from Nine Elms corridor.

Option 2 Assumed that Battersea station would also attract 95% of BPS development tube trips but only 35% of tube trips from Nine Elms corridor. 45% of

Final Report


20

Nine Elms corridor tube trips would instead use Nine Elms station with another 20% assumed to use the existing station at Vauxhall because of proximity to the station. This would also include passengers that would use the bus to get to Vauxhall even if there was a Northern line connection at Vauxhall.

Option 3 Assumed that Battersea Power Station would attract 100% of BPS development tube trips and 50% of Nine Elms corridor tube trips. It is assumed that 30% of Nine Elms corridor tube trips would instead use the Northern Line connection at Vauxhall station i.e. the majority of trips that would have used Nine Elms station in option2.

2.20 Tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 summarise these preliminary peak hour station demand forecasts for each of the three stations. These are very high-level estimates based only on assumed trip-making from proposed new development and benchmarking of other sources of demand. The distribution between the three Battersea station entrances is notional at this stage.

2.21 These demand forecasts relate to no specific forecast year and are designed only as a reasonable basis for initial architectural planning of tube stations. They should not be used uncritically for any other purpose. More detailed outputs will be provided to the engineering and architectural team following the completion of SKMs OAPF modelling exercise.

Option 1: Extension from Kennington to a new station at Battersea

2.22 Estimated Battersea station peak hour demand is shown in Table 2.4.

TABLE 2.4 BATTERSEA STATION PEAK FLOWS - OPTION 1

In Out Total flows

Battersea Station

AM Peak 5,600 4,200 9,800

PM Peak 4,700 4,700 9,400

Option 2: Extension from Kennington to a new station at Battersea via an intermediate station at Nine Elms

2.23 Estimated Battersea and Nine Elms station peak hour demand is shown in Table 2.5.

TABLE 2.5 BATTERSEA / NINE ELMS STATIONS PEAK HOUR FLOWS - OPTION 2

In Out Total Flows

Battersea Station

AM Peak 5,000 3,700 8,700

PM Peak 5,600 2,800 8,400

Nine Elms Station

AM Peak 3,700 1,700 5,400

PM Peak 3,700 1,500 5,200

Final Report


21

Option 3: Extension from Kennington to a new station at Battersea via a connection at Vauxhall

2.24 Estimated Battersea and Vauxhall Northern Line peak hour demand is shown in Table 2.6.

TABLE 2.6 BATTERSEA / VAUXHALL STATIONS PEAK HOUR FLOWS - OPTION 3

In Out Total Flows

Battersea Power Station

AM Peak 5,400 4,100 9,500

PM Peak 6,000 3,000 9,000

Vauxhall Northern Line Platforms

AM Peak 3,400 1,500 4,900

PM Peak 3,400 1,300 4,700

Interchange at Vauxhall

2.25 Option 3 would provide interchange between the Victoria Line and the Northern line at Vauxhall. In order to estimate potential interchange demand, existing journey to work trips from four wards have been considered along the Northern Line just south of the development.

2.26 From existing journey to work census data for the four wards, it can be assumed that about 40-45% of total tube work trips were more likely to be on the Victoria Line and the rest on the Northern Line, providing an indication of where people living in those wards work. It has therefore been assumed that approximately 40% of Battersea station trips would interchange to the Victoria line at Vauxhall.

TABLE 2.7 SPLIT BETWEEN NORTHERN AND VICTORIA LINES (CENSUS 2001)

Line Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Northern Line 52% 63% 62% 61%

Victoria line 48% 37% 38% 39%

TABLE 2.8 VICTORIA LINE INTERCHANGE AT VAUXHALL PEAK HOUR

In Out Total Flows

Vauxhall Victoria Line Platforms

AM peak 1,300 600 1,900

PM peak 1,300 500 1,800

2.27 All initial patronage forecasts will be reviewed when the OAPF modelling is complete.

Final Report


22

3. SCHEME DEVELOPMENT

3.1 The technical feasibility study was divided into three phases. Phase 1 sought to identify key issues and challenges in terms of developing working assumptions for the three route options. It also identified possible variants in design and specification that could be pursued in relation to these issues. Phase 2 sought to evaluate these possible variants and, where possible, short-list them in moving towards a preferred working assumption for each of the route options which could then be taken forward to preliminary feasibility and finalised during Phase 3.

3.2 At the end of Phase 1, a workshop day was held (July 30th 2008) to address each of the key issues identified during Phase 1, clarify design variants that might be possible in relation to the issues, where possible eliminate variants, and finally to define the next steps for the engineering team (and others) towards reaching a preferred working assumption during the remainder of Phases 2 and 3.

3.3 Work to develop and then narrow down the design variants clarified in the workshop day was progressed by PB with input from LUL through regular Design and Engineering workshops.

3.4 The remainder of this chapter serves to record in summary the design variants considered in relation to the most notable feasibility issues arising.

Battersea Station and Cross-Over Configuration

3.5 The proposed location of a station box within the Battersea Power Station site and development masterplan is on the south-western corner of the site next to Battersea Park Road. The Thames Water Ring Main crosses the south-east corner of the site with an invert level of approximately -26m and a 2.76m diameter. A tunnel invert of approximately -16m is proposed for the Northern Line tunnels. It is considered highly unlikely that Thames Water would allow the excavation of a deep box over the Ring Main. Therefore the length available for the box construction is only about 200m. Within these constraints it will be necessary to construct both the station box and cross-overs.

3.6 LUL have specified various key requirements for the Battersea Station layout including 2 banks of 3 escalators (to allow sufficient capacity for scheduled and unplanned maintenance) which drives an increase in platform width to 17m, which in turn has an effect on the switches and crossings arrangements that push the layout even further towards Thames Water main.

3.7 In order to accommodate this, the following configurations have been considered, employing various combinations of boxed, mined cavern and bored tunnel construction:

Option 1 - Island platform. Crossovers to the west of the platforms (mined cavern outside BPS land boundary).

Option 2 - Island platform to the west of the box. Crossovers to the east of the platforms in a mined cavern above the ring main.

Option 3 - Side platforms. Crossovers to the east of the platforms within the box. Running lines outside the box possibly in a single cavern until separation allows twin bores.

Option 4 - As option iii but with the platform and crossover locations reversed.

Final Report


23

Option 5 - Side platforms towards the west of the site. Crossovers to the west of the platforms in a mined cavern outside the BPS land boundary.

Option 6 - Island platform towards the west of the site. Crossovers to the west of the platforms in a mined cavern (further) outside the BPS land boundary.

Option 7 - Partly curved island platform. Crossovers close to the east of the platforms, partly in a mined cavern over the ring main.

Option 8 - Fully curved island platform. Crossovers even closer to the east of the platforms very slightly in a mined cavern close to the ring main.

Option 9 - Straight-edged triangular island platform. Crossovers immediately to the east of the platform within the box.

3.8 Cost estimates for the 9 different combinations of station layout/position and crossover layout/position (as set out in paragraph 3.7) have been produced by Parsons Brinckerhoff which indicate only minor differences in cost for the various options, therefore the decision for the preferred working assumption was based only on engineering feasibility.

3.9 Considering the short length available from the western site boundary and the Thames Water Ring Main consultation zone, Options 3, 4 and 5 that involve side platforms were not preferred because these do not allow the tracks to diverge sufficiently to allow single track twin bored tunnelling to start at the end of the station/crossover box. Also, the side platforms are not ideal for passenger access because the number of access/egress points is doubled making access between platforms more complicated.

3.10 Options 1 and 6 were rejected because the crossover would be constructed in mined tunnel under Network Rail tracks and viaducts with associated settlement impacts and their mitigation expected to be significant. Construction access and methodology would also be more difficult.

3.11 Option 2 and 7 considered the construction of the crossover over the Thames Water ring Main, which is considered highly unlikely to be acceptable to Thames Water.

3.12 Whilst Option 9 gives the LUL ideal straight platforms, it would preclude the future extension of the over-run tunnels (avoiding the gas holders) if the line were to be extended to the west. The wedge shape is also not ideal for the design of the box.

Specification adopted for preliminary feasibility study

3.13 The option adopted in the Preliminary Feasibility Study as a working assumption for the Battersea station and crossover configuration is therefore Option 8 (PB drawing 90388A-GGP-10-016-1C is reproduced in Appendix 2); specifically, a single island platform, tapered towards crossovers at the east end of the platforms, all within a box construction. This specification involves an initial length of the running tunnels to the east of the box being bored at a slightly enlarged diameter in order to incorporate the end of the cross-over turnouts with the box construction not encroaching into the no-pile zone for the Thames Water Ring Main. All of LULs key requirements (see paragraph 3.6) are achieved with Option 8.

3.14 The platforms will be 118.5 metres long (as agreed with LUL) and are assumed to be curved (at 1500m radius) for 60 % of their length, with the remainder on straight track. The

Final Report


24

requirement to safeguard the possibility of extending the alignment further west in the future, avoiding the gas holders to the west of the site, has contributed to the choice of this design.

3.15 The design of the station and containing box has been specified to allow for the development of an 8 storey over-station development, the design of which would have to be approved by LUL.

3.16 The working assumption Battersea station layout assumes two entrances/exits directly off Battersea Park Road. The entrances extend to the rear of the station where a bank of three escalators leads to the ticket hall at level -6m. This arrangement allows for a potential connection between the ticket hall and the development on the unpaid side. Two banks of three escalators then connect to platform at -14m.

3.17 Coordinating design between the station and the Battersea Power Station masterplan will be very important during the subsequent stages of design, particularly the connection between the ticket hall and development entrance, the station box shape and the structural grid for the over-station development.

3.18 It remains to be conclusively demonstrated that this arrangement will allow the turning of up to 28 trains per hour at the station as a temporary terminus. An initial capacity assessment has been undertaken and reported in Chapter 4 but full simulation would only be practical during the next stage of design. However, LUL has indicated that, with a well managed stepping back operation, 28tph should be achievable and that a shorter length cross-over design might actually improve operational efficiency. This could potentially lead to a significant reduction in construction cost and should therefore be considered further during the detailed feasibility study.

Connections at Kennington

3.19 It is proposed to extend the Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line, which effectively terminates at Kennington in a run-around loop tunnel - although trains can continue southwards towards Morden by crossing at this point into the other branch.

3.20 Trains that currently reverse from Southbound to Northbound at Kennington using the run-around loop tunnel would instead continue on to Battersea Power Station via the new extension.

3.21 Ideally, a straight section of tunnel with un-canted track is required in order to construct a step-plate junction with the existing tunnel. With much initial uncertainty about the existing tunnel and track geometry, three potential options were identified, which are illustrated schematically in Figure 3.1:

Option 1a Connections to/from the outside of the turnaround loop, at its roots; Option 1b Connections to/from the inside of the turnaround loop, at its roots; and Option 2 Connections to/from the link tunnels between City and Charing Cross

lines.

3.22 Option 1b (connection to the inside of the loop) was ruled out due to constraints on tunnelling the approaches to the junctions in the vicinity of existing tunnels.

Final Report


25

3.23 Option 2 was not adopted for the preliminary feasibility study because of the short length of the tunnels between Charing Cross and City branches. It was concluded that the short length of tunnel available introduced too great a level of uncertainty as to whether the connection could be fitted in, which could not be resolved with the level of investigation and design reasonably associated with a preliminary feasibility study. However, this option has not been conclusively ruled out and has been identified for possible further study at the next stage of scheme development. It is thought to have the potential to reduce costs by connecting to a section of running tunnel which could more reasonably be closed during excavation and construction.

Final Report


27

FIGURE 3.1 OPTIONS FOR LOCATION OF CONNECTION AT KENNINGTON

Final Report


29


3.24 The method of connection to existing tunnels at Kennington, adopted as a working assumption for the preliminary feasibility study, is Option 1a: Step plate junctions to the outside of the turnaround loop, close to its root within a straight section of the existing alignment.

3.25 It is intended that these step-plate junctions can be constructed around the existing tunnels with a series of possessions then being required to break into the existing tunnels and install turnouts. It has been identified that the existing straight sections of track are currently canted but it is believed that this cant could be removed and the track accordingly re-aligned during normal engineering hours prior to the main possession subject to safety considerations.

3.26 A great deal of cost and risk is associated with this part of the scheme and, although a particular approach has been adopted and shown to be feasible, it has been suggested that further scheme development work should again review alternative options that were not ruled out entirely, so as to ensure that the optimal solution is taken forward.

Location and configuration of New Nine Elms Station

3.27 Five possible sites have been identified for a potential station at Nine Elms as shown in Figure 3.2.

FIGURE 3.2 POTENTIAL NINE ELMS STATION LOCATIONS

Site 1 - Beneath open space at the north eastern end of the New Covent Garden Market site, south of the mainline railway.

Site 2 - Beneath open space towards the southern side of the Flower Market site, north of the mainline railway.

Site 3 - At the existing Travis Perkins builders merchants yard (to the east of the Sainsburys site)

Final Report


30

Site 4 - At the existing Sainsburys supermarket site immediately south of the mainline railway on Wandsworth Road.

Site 5 - To the south side of the existing Sainsburys supermarket site, on land owned by New Covent Garden Markets and Sainsburys (car park).


3.28 For the purposes of developing this preliminary feasibility study, the land owned by New Covent Garden Market and Sainsburys car park to the south of the Sainsburys supermarket (site 5) is being taken as a working assumption as to the site of the Nine Elms station. It is understood that both Sainsburys and New Covent Garden Markets are keen to develop this land and initial discussions have been had with NCGM. This location also provides arguably the most convenient alignment and construction access and good potential links with buses in Wandsworth Road as well as the most substantial catchments and convenient pedestrian linkages.

3.29 However, sensible alignments could equally allow for the location of this station anywhere on the Sainsburys site or even at the Travis Perkins site. For flexibility in planning, these locations will not been completely ruled out at this stage pending further discussions with the various freeholders.

3.30 The preferred Nine Elms station layout assumes a single entrance/exit directly from Wandsworth Road leading into a ground-level ticket hall and a bank of three escalators connecting to platform level at -18.5m.

Provision of Turn-back Facility at Nine Elms

3.31 LUL operations experts have expressed concerns about the implications for service recovery should a train fail on the proposed extension. Although a cross-over is provided at the Battersea terminus and the intention is to retain the Kennington loop as a turnaround facility, the possibility of introducing an additional turn-back at Nine Elms has also been proposed by LUL. This is thought to be feasible using a pair of mined step plate junctions with a connecting tunnel. This is included in the capital cost estimates as an optional line item.

3.32 The requirement for this facility remains uncertain, however. A detailed operational assessment, perhaps involving simulation modelling, will be required early in the next stages of scheme development to establish whether this facility represents good value for money in terms of delivering significant improvement in service robustness and recovery.

Interchange Station at Vauxhall

3.33 A new interchange station at Vauxhall is considered the most difficult to achieve. Several critical constraints are identified in the PB report. The avoidance of these constraints has suggested that, in practice only a very deep-level station with low-level interchange tunnels and a new, separate ticket concourse could conceivably be made to work. But this would still have many shortcomings and risks in terms of construction, availability of construction sites and operability.

3.34 Owing to the need to put in a tight curve to the southbound line from the Kennington Loop, the limited open space and the preference to avoid construction of large platform tunnels

Final Report


31

beneath the Network Rail tracks and station, the options are limited.

3.35 A deep-level mined station with platforms at -24m accessed via a basement-level interchange from the existing Victoria line ticket hall, or via a new ticket hall located in the basement of adjacent buildings immediately to the south of the station, are thought to be the only deliverable arrangements.


3.36 A configuration based on expanding and improving the existing Victoria Line ticket hall and a basement level interchange has been adopted as a working assumption for the Preliminary Feasibility Study.

3.37 Significant feasibility and deliverability issues have been identified and a range of notable risks associated with planning, construction, operation and costs. A more detailed study would be required to confirm with certainty the feasibility of any connection at Vauxhall.

3.38 Furthermore, LUL has raised concerns regarding the adverse impact that provision of an interchange at Vauxhall would have on the existing station congestion as well as the loading on the Victoria line itself and other stations further along the Victoria Line.

3.39 The October 2008 announcement that the American Embassy wishes to relocate to a site in Nine Elms adjacent to the proposed Vauxhall alignment is likely to introduce an additional constraint for the development of this option.

Tunnel Alignments

3.40 Preferred horizontal and vertical alignments for each route option are presented in PBs Feasibility Report.

3.41 The most convenient alignments for the direct route and that via a Nine Elms station involve tunnelling under the Oval cricket ground. It is assumed that this will be possible but if it proves to be too great a delivery risk alternative alignments are possible by the introduction of curves with acceptable radii. However, the increased length and curvature of the route might increase the lifetime operating and maintenance costs significantly through train / wheel interface maintenance costs.

Final Report


32

Ventilation and Evacuation

3.42 A series of potential intervention shaft locations have been identified and adopted as working assumptions for the purpose of the preliminary feasibility study. However, it is not clear that they would be approvable in terms of their visual impact at surface level. The next stage of scheme development should consider the approvability of a range of shaft locations and it should be understood that the alignment might ultimately have to be revised to accommodate the most acceptable locations.

Route Option 1

3.43 The preliminary feasibility study adopted the following intervention shaft locations for the route direct to Battersea:

The western edge of the Sainsburys site (close to the Nine Elms station location in Route Option 2) above the southbound line with a cross-passage to the northbound line;

At Claylands Road and Meadow Road (requiring compulsory purchase of existing property) above the northbound line with a cross-passage to the southbound line at the point where these lines diverge to approach the Kennington loop separately.

Derelict land adjacent to the gin distillery on Montford Place, above the northbound line as it approaches the Kennington loop; and

The North East corner of Kennington Park, above the southbound line as it leaves the Kennington loop.

Route Option 2

3.44 The preliminary feasibility study adopted the following intervention shaft locations for the route to Battersea via a new station at Nine Elms, which itself replaces one of the shafts required in Route Option 1:

On green space at Claylands Road, between and linked to both the northbound and southbound lines at the point where these lines diverge to approach the Kennington loop separately.

Derelict land adjacent to the gin distillery on Montford Place, above the northbound line as it approaches the Kennington loop; and

The North East corner of Kennington Park, above the southbound line as it leaves the Kennington loop.

Route Option 3

3.45 The preliminary feasibility study adopted the following intervention shaft locations for the route to Battersea via a new station at Nine Elms, which itself replaces one of the shafts required in Route Option 1:

On a site, currently a parking lot, immediately to the east of Ponton Road and immediately adjacent to the mainline railway, above the southbound line with a cross-passage to the northbound line;

Incorporated into the design of the new station at Vauxhall, between the southbound

Final Report


33

and northbound lines.

On derelict land to the east of Montford place, just north east of the gasworks at Oval, above the northbound line.

On open land within the gasworks site at Oval, above the southbound line; Derelict land adjacent to the gin distillery on Montford Place, above the northbound

line as it approaches the Kennington loop; and

The North East corner of Kennington Park , above the southbound line as it leaves the Kennington loop.

Summary Approach to Construction

3.46 The following is a summary of the proposed construction methodology prepared by PB:

Box Construction of Stations

3.47 The Battersea and Nine Elms stations would be essentially box constructions with some limited mined caverns at either end.

3.48 It is assumed that both stations will be built using a diaphragm wall construction technique, which consists of excavating a trench in sections keeping each section filled with an engineering fluid or slurry called bentonite in order to support the ground using hydraulic pressure against the trench walls.

3.49 After the excavation of one section is complete a steel reinforcement cage is located in the trench and concrete is pumped in one single operation to build the wall displacing the bentonite support. The slurry can be recollected and used for the next section using the same methodology.

3.50 Provisional lateral supports are needed during construction. However, after the excavation is finished a structural base will be constructed to support the base of the wall and the works inside the station box can begin from the bottom to the top of the box replacing the provisional props with permanent structural members.

Battersea Station and Crossover

3.51 The station box at Battersea station will have enough space for the station and the crossover and it would be independent; thus its construction can be undertaken at the same time as the main tunnel construction.

Nine Elms Station

3.52 In contrast, the Nine Elms station box would be shorter because it only needs space for the station; any crossings would be located in the excavated chambers mined before or after the construction of the station. If the final preferred alignment is Option 1, a flat tunnel would be provided to allow for the potential construction of the station in the future.

Vauxhall

3.53 Vauxhall station is located inside the London clay area. It would have to be a deep mined construction using mechanical excavation methods and would be lined with sprayed concrete. For the construction of the ticket hall and to give access to the excavation works,

Final Report


34

surface works would be necessary.

3.54 There are many obstacles to the feasibility of this station in general and construction access possibilities remain uncertain at this stage.

Running Tunnels

3.55 The main running tunnels would be bored from the Battersea Power Station site with spoil removal from that location, probably taken off site by river transport.

3.56 In the western part of the construction site after the construction of the Battersea station box is finished, but before the construction of the station, two 70 metres over-run tunnels would be constructed using mechanical excavation methodologies and sprayed concrete.

3.57 Two additional 36 metres sprayed concrete tunnels will carry the tunnel boring machines from the eastern wall of the Battersea station box, over the TW Ring Main.

Kennington Connections

3.58 Two step plate junctions will be required for connection to the Kennington loop. For the construction of these junctions the guidance provided by LULs Manual of Good Practice G-55 would be used.

3.59 The chambers could be constructed using circular spheroidal graphite iron segmental linings except for the largest ones that will be constructed using elliptical lining. These have the advantage of reducing the volume of ground excavated and consequently the amount of settlement is also reduced.

3.60 The chambers will use the two permanent ventilation and intervention shafts closest to the Kennington loop as access points. To access the southern chamber a 160 metres tunnel will be required and to access the northern chamber an approximately 260 to 320 metres tunnel. These tunnels will be constructed using an open face tunnel boring machine and will arrive alongside the existing loop tunnel.

3.61 Construction of step plate junction requires a significant amount of hand mining especially for the excavation of the initial heading and chimney. There will be controls to ensure that workers are not exposed to the maximum limits of vibration. The design of the chamber will allow for the use of mechanical excavating equipment up to 1700 mm working width.

Summary Construction Programme

3.62 PBs Preliminary Feasibility Report, includes estimated construction programmes relating to the adopted specifications for each of Routes 1, 2 and 3. The top-level summaries for each of these are reproduced below, in Figures 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

3.63 Dependent on the programme for the proposed TWAO, construction for Routes 1 and 2 could start in 2012 and be completed by September 2015, but route 3 (via Vauxhall) would take 15 months longer (due to the construction of a new interchange station at Vauxhall) and would not be completed until December 2016.

Final Report


35

FIGURE 3.3 SUMMARY ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME: ROUTE OPTION 1

Final Report


36


Final Report


37


Final Report


39

4. TRAIN OPERATIONS

Existing Service Pattern

4.1 In order to reduce the problems and complexity of the Northern Lines previous service pattern as a result of irregular headways, particularly during the peak periods, the current service pattern was introduced earlier this year. This is shown by Figure 4.1 for both the AM and PM peak. The new service pattern significantly separates the two lines in the AM peak with the majority of the Morden services operating via the City branch through Camden Town to Mill Hill and High Barnet. The Morden/Charing Cross branch service have been reduced from 10 to 6 in both peaks and these are integrated with the services commencing from Kennington through Camden to serve the Edgware branch only.

FIGURE 4.1 EXISTING NORTHERN LINE SERVICE PATTERN AM AND PM PEAK

4.2 The Morden branch is currently served by 28 trains in the AM and PM peak hours. This is achieved by through-running 22 trains per hour serving the Bank / City branch and 6 Charing Cross branch services. The remainder of the Charing Cross branch service terminates at Kennington and turn through the Kennington Loop to inter-work with the returning northbound Morden / Charing Cross services.

4.3 The current timetable has enabled a more consistent headway to be operated in the peaks improving the operability and reliability of the service.

4.4 The off peak frequency is reduced compared with the AM peak and provides more direct journeys, with the services on each central branch splitting at Camden to serve both the Edgware and the High Barnet routes. The Morden services operate via the City branch only. This is shown in Figure 4.2.

Final Report


40

FIGURE 4.2 EXISTING NORTHERN LINE SERVICE PATTERN OFF-PEAK

Tube Lines Service Improvement

4.5 The current PPP arrangement with Tube Lines requires a significant level of service improvement to be delivered by 2012. This will be achieved through the implementation of Thales Seltrac moving block signalling system to provide increased service frequencies and journey time improvements, providing greater capacity with the existing vehicles. The proposed service upgrade is shown in Figure 4.3.

Final Report


41

FIGURE 4.3 2012 PROPOSED SERVICE IMPROVEMENT WITH NEW SIGNALLING AM AND PM PEAK

4.6 The service improvements will see the peak service frequency increase to 32 trains per hour (from 28) on the Morden branch and to 24 per hour per direction on both the Charing Cross and City branches (from 22 now). On the Morden branch 24 trains per hour will run through to the City branch and 8 trains per hour will run through to the Charing Cross branch. This will result in 16 of the Charing Cross branch services terminating at Kennington and turning through the Kennington Loop to inter-work with the returning northbound Morden / Charing Cross services.

Proposed Partial Separation of the Northern Line

4.7 To provide additional capacity improvements LUL have developing initial proposals to partially separate the two branches of the Northern Line. This could result in a service pattern shown in Figure 4.4.

Final Report


42

FIGURE 4.4 PARTIAL SERPARATION OF THE NORTHERN LINE AM AND PM PEAK

4.8 The proposed arrangement would result in the Charing Cross branch services being separated from the through route to Morden with all the services terminating at Kennington utilising the Kennington Loop i.e. 28 trains per hour.

4.9 The extension of the Northern Line to BPS does not preclude or require the introduction of partial separation.

Runtimes

4.10 Runtimes for each of the route options have been developed utilising a spreadsheet based runtime model adjusted to reflect the performance data for the Northern Line Tube stock, benchmarked against the performance achieved on existing sections of the Northern Line. The spreadsheet was also compared against the Jubilee Line extension where the quality of the infrastructure is similar to that proposed for the extension and where the resulting average train speeds are higher.

4.11 A reduced braking rate of approximately 0.7 m/s2 has been utilised for the trains entering the Battersea terminus based on the possible requirements for the Seltrac signalling system and an overrun tunnel length of approximately 50 metres. This resulted in an increased braking time of approximately 4 seconds.

4.12 The resulting runtime for the direct option from Kennington to Battersea is detailed in Table 4.1 westbound and Table 4.2 eastbound.

Final Report


43

TABLE 4.1 KENNINGTON TO BATTERSEA RUNTIME

Station Distance Time (min:sec) Average Speed

Kennington 0

Battersea 3.2 km 4:23

Total 3.2 Km 4:23 45 km/hr

TABLE 4.2 BATTERSEA TO KENNINGTON RUNTIME


Battersea 0

Kennington 3.1 km 4:10

Total 3.1 Km 4:10 45km /hr

4.13 The resulting runtime for the option from Kennington to Battersea via Nine Elms is detailed in Table 4.3 westbound and Table 4.4 eastbound. A dwell time of 25 seconds has been assumed at the intermediate stop.

TABLE 4.3 KENNINGTON TO BATTERSEA VIA NINE ELMS RUNTIME


Kennington 0

Nine Elms 2.3 km 3:05

Battersea 1.0 km 2:07 including dwell


Final Report


44

TABLE 4.4 BATTERSEA TO KENNINGTON VIA NINE ELMS RUNTIME


Battersea 0

Nine Elms 1.2 km 1:35

Kennington 2.1 km 3:27 including dwell


4.14 The resulting runtime for the option from Kennington to Battersea via Vauxhall is detailed in Table 4.5 westbound and Table 4.6 eastbound. A dwell time of 25 seconds has been assumed at the intermediate stop.

TABLE 4.5 KENNINGTON TO BATTERSEA VIA VAUXHALL RUNTIME


Kennington 0

Vauxhall 2.0 km 2:52

Battersea 1.5 km 2:35 including dwell

Total 3.5 Km 5:27 39 km /hr

TABLE 4.6 BATTERSEA TO KENNINGTON VIA VAUXHALL RUNTIME


Battersea 0

Vauxhall 1.6 km 1:59

Kennington 1.5 km 3:28 including dwell

Total 3.1 Km 5:27 40 km /hr

4.15 The resulting comparative westbound runtimes are:

Battersea direct = 4:23 Battersea via Nine Elms = 5:12 Battersea via Vauxhall = 5:27

4.16 The resulting comparative eastbound runtimes are:

Battersea direct = 4:10 Battersea via Nine Elms = 5:02 Battersea via Vauxhall = 5:27

Final Report


45

4.17 Runtime assessments for each of the route options will be undertaken in more detail at the next stage of design.

Capacity of Battersea Terminus

4.18 The capacity of a two track terminus arrangement and its ability to enable the termination and commencement of the return services at different service frequencies is a key criteria for the development of the Battersea station arrangement.

4.19 The service frequency terminating at Battersea will be the same as the peak frequency of the services proposed to terminate at Kennington with partial separation. These will up to 28 trains per hour depending on the timescales for both the extension and the proposed options to increase service frequency on the existing line.

4.20 Two platform arrangements are in use elsewhere on the London Underground network and are either operating at or proposed to operate at similar frequencies to those potentially required of the Battersea route. As the service frequency increases the layover time at Battersea needs to be reduced resulting in the need to step back drivers to allow drivers enough time to change ends.

4.21 Layover times have been developed for the different services frequencies based upon the runtimes into and out of the Battersea terminus, including the clearance time across the diamond crossing. The runtimes have been increased by 15% to provide for some variance in the runtimes. The departure time also includes an allowance for the inbound train to ensure the departing train is clear of the diamond crossing prior to the arrival of the inbound train needing to be impeded by the need to brake within the signalling braking distance.

4.22 The approximate layover time for the different service frequencies are shown in Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.7 BATTERSEA TERMINUS LAYOVER

Service Frequency Headway Layover

20 tph 3:00 4:20

24 tph 2:30 3:20

28 tph 2:00 (2:08) 2:20

Fleet Requirements

4.23 The additional fleet requirements for the proposed Battersea extension options have been developed for the existing and future service frequencies, and are shown in Table 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.

4.24 The additional fleet requirements are based upon the developed runtimes for the different route options, the maximum layover permissible at Battersea for each service frequency minus an assumed current transit and layover time of 6 minutes at the current Kennington terminus. The current Kennington terminus Layover is based upon

Final Report


46

the extended dwell on arrival at Kennington, the transit time around the loop and the layover at Kennington prior to departure.

4.25 The identified fleet requirements do not allow for additional spares. It is assumed that the small number of additional trains can be maintained utilising the spare within the existing fleet.

TABLE 4.8 KENNINGTON / BATTERSEA FLEET REQUIREMENTS

20 Trains /Hr 24 Trains / Hr* 28 Trains / Hr**

Runtime K to B 4:23 4:23 4:23

Runtime B to K 4:10 4:10 4:10

Layover at Battersea 4:20 3:20 2:20

Minus Current Layover

6:00 6:00 6:00

Journey Time Increase

6:53 5:53 4:53

Additional Fleet Requirement

3 3 3

* PPP service increase ** Partial Separation

TABLE 4.9 KENNINGTON / NINE ELMS / BATTERSEA FLEET REQUIREMENTS


Runtime K to B 5:12 5:12 5:12

Runtime B to K 5:02 5:02 5:02



5:00 5:00 5:00


8:34 7:34 6:34


3 3 4


Final Report


47

TABLE 4.10 KENNINGTON / VAUXHALL / BATTERSEA FLEET REQUIREMENTS


Runtime K to B 5:27 5:27 5:27

Runtime B to K 5:27 5:27 5:27



5:00 5:00 5:00


9:14 8:14 7:14


4 4 4


Final Report


48

5. COST ESTIMATES

Capital Costs by Route Option

5.1 Costs estimates have been prepared by Corderoy for the three optimal route options developed by PB;

Direct to Battersea Power Station To Battersea Power Station via a new station in the Nine Elms area To Battersea Power Station via a new interchange station at Vauxhall

5.2 These cost estimates are reported in Chapter 11 of PBs Feasibility Report.

5.3 The following relevant information was available for the estimation of these costs:

Indicative requirements for lifts (usage & loadings), escalators (numbers of, lengths), access, ventilation & intervention shafts (diameters & headworks), etc. for the M&E element.

Construction programmes for each of the options such that preliminaries may be

estimated.

A construction programme for the step plate junctions for which it is currently considered that the estimate will be resource driven rather than quantity driven.

Dimensions for floors, columns, walls, etc.

Indicative architectural requirements / finishes.

Diameters of tunnels, particularly NATM / non bored elements.

Anticipated ground conditions and ground treatment

5.4 In addition constraints imposed by third parties or assumed (Thames Water, LUL, Network Rail, etc.) have been considered along with identified risks and the resulting costs. This methodology will be subject to change as the design is developed in the next stage and additional information becomes available.

5.5 The capital costs for the options are summarised in Table 5.1. The cost estimates are 426m for Option1, 506m for Option 2 and 680m for Option 3.

Final Report


49

TABLE 5.1 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES

Routes

1 2 3

m m m

Battersea Station (including overrun) 109.5 109.5 109.5

Battersea Crossover Box 20.9 20.9 20.9

Nine Elms n/a 85.2 n/a

Vauxhall n/a n/a 230.0

Shafts 28.9 21.9 36.5

Tunnels 112.2 111.7 124.0

Step-plate junction 45.6 45.6 46.4

Linewide systems 58.3 60.5 61.0

Sub Total 375.4 455.3 628.3

Trains 36.0 36.0 36.0

Stabling 10.0 10.0 10.0

Nine Elms Crossover/Vauxhall 4.5 4.5 5.4

Total (Rounded) 426.0 506.0 680.0

5.6 Excluded from the estimates shown in Table 5.1 are:

Cost incurred to date;

Cost of LUL and Infraco team, Council and other Authorities including design and project management duties;

Preparing, promoting and supporting any Transport and Works Act costs;

Client costs developing the project design and during construction phase;

Land costs;

Operating, maintenance and renewal costs;

Project risk or contingency;

Compensation to LUL, Infracos or any other parties;

Cost of upgrading the existing network to improve or maintain reliability;

VAT, Taxes and Fluctuations, i.e. inflation;

Main contractors design costs;

Commissioning; and

Final Report


50

Changes in legislation affecting the construction project

5.7 It should be noted that these exclusions may add 15%-20% to the base cost.

5.8 The estimates have been prepared on the basis that:-

All construction work and E&M and system installations are encompassed in a fully designed single point contract. There will be an employer/Main Contractor agreement with the Main Contractor deemed to sub-contract as appropriate. It is likely that increasing interfacing by splitting the works into smaller contracts will increase cost by way of supervision and the risk of disruption.

The duration of the contract and construction activities reflected in the estimate are as represented by the programme applicable to the various options.

Confidence level

5.9 The confidence level for Routes 1 & 2 is estimated as 30% and 40% for Route 3.

Operating Costs

5.10 Initial Operating Costs estimates have been developed from information supplied by LUL and benchmarked against higher level information taken from TfLs 2006/07 Annual Report, 2007/08 Accounts and the LUL Environmental Report 2005. The information supplied and extrapolated has been used in conjunction with the developed runtime and lengths of the route options to develop operating costs for the route options.

5.11 The following operating cost estimates are supported by a developed operating cost model which details all the costs, assumptions and sources of information. As a benchmark, an operating cost per kilometre of 13.81 has also been developed based on the total operating cost for 2007/08 excluding the PPP upgrades to provide a comparative benchmark for the resulting operating cost estimates.

5.12 The resulting comparative operating cost estimates (rounded) are:

Battersea direct = 7.9m per year Battersea via Nine Elms = 9.8m per year Battersea via Vauxhall = 9.6m per year

Final Report


51

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CONSTRAINTS

6.1 This chapter summarises the Preliminary Environmental Assessment undertaken by URS Corporation Ltd (URS) for each of the three tube extension options. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the URS Preliminary Environmental Assessment Final Report, Issue 5, December 2008 (URS Ref: 49315981).

Overview of Key Environmental Considerations and Impacts

Construction Phase

6.2 The following technical aspects were thought to require further consideration within the construction phase Preliminary Environmental Assessment. A brief synopsis of each is provided below.

Noise & Vibration

Potential noise and vibration from tunnel/shaft and station excavations/construction to local residents, the public, local businesses and services (e.g. hospitals and schools), listed buildings and amenity areas/open spaces; and

Vibration impact on the Thames Water Ring Main and other underground utilities and assets.

Air Quality

Airborne dust generation/nuisance to local residents, workers, and pedestrians from excavations, materials handling and concrete batching; and

Emissions of Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulates/dust (PM10) from construction plant and traffic.

Socio-Economics

Employment during construction phase; and

Temporary loss of amenities/local facilities/open space.

Ground Conditions

Disturbance/mobilisation of any sub-surface contaminants during excavation;

Creation of new pathways for contaminants to enter surface and groundwater resources;

Geo-hazards e.g. unexploded ordnance;

Impact on ground and surface water abstractions;

Final Report


52

Potential for the introduction of new sources of contamination e.g. from plant, equipment and construction materials;

Disturbance of contaminated land and mobilisation of potential contaminants into groundwater/surface water resources; and

Settlement/ground movement.

6.3 Whilst URS has considered broadly the potential impacts associated with geotechnical hazards and ground conditions, it should be noted that PB have undertaken a Geotechnical Desk Study of the Study Area. The Geotechnical Desk Study and resulting analysis of the geotechnical and engineering considerations is presented in Section 4 of the Northern Line Extension to Battersea Power Station Engineering and Architectural Feasibility Study, dated December 2008. This joint approach to the assessment of the ground conditions of the Study Area has enabled a preliminary assessment of the geotechnical hazards to be taken into consideration at the engineering and environmental feasibility stage.

Water Resources

Increased suspended sediment loads in surface waters at points of spoil handling and stockpiling;

Mobilisation of oils and fuels;

Mobilisation of concrete and cement products;

Disturbance of contaminated land and mobilisation of potential contaminants into groundwater/surface water resources;

Disturbance of foul drainage; and

The requirement for dewatering during excavation due to encountering water bearing sands, seepage from perched water tables and boring through the Lambeth Group.

Ecology

Direct loss of, or damage to habitats and species during construction; and

Indirect impact to habitats and species as a result of dust and noise generation during excavation/construction activities.

Waste Management

Potential for contaminated excavated materials soil classification prior to disposal of waste; and

Spoil excavation and management.

Final Report


53

Archaeology & Built Heritage

Impacts to archaeological resources; and

Impacts to listed buildings both direct (i.e. structural) and indirect (i.e. their setting).

Operational Phase

The following technical aspects were thought to require further consideration within the operational phase Preliminary Environmental Assessment. A brief synopsis of each is provided below.

Noise & Vibration

Vibration and re-radiated noise from tube operations below ground;

Noise from ventilation shafts; and

Operational noise associated with use of the station e.g. tannoy systems and servicing traffic noise.

Air Quality

Changes to the level of emissions by mode shift from use from private vehicles to use of underground services; and

Potential for worsened localised air quality around permanent ventilation shafts.

Ground Conditions

Long term settle

Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms ... Line... · NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO BATTERSEA AND NINE ELMS: FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY Final Report December

Text of Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms ... Line... · NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO...

Future Bus Demand In The Vauxhall Nine Elms …content.tfl.gov.uk/future-bus-demand-in-the-vauxhall...Battersea Park Road/Nine Elms Lane 550 8 Wandsworth Road (South of NLE Nine Elms

Future Bus Demand In The Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea ... · 1 Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework p.6 . 2 ... corridor. New Covent Garden ... Sloane

Battersea Roof Gardens Floor Plans - Savills · Battersea Roof Gardens Foster+Partners Battersea Roof Gardens undulates along the line of Electric Boulevard, creating a unique building

ELMS BT1 ELMS BT2 UNIVERSITY LIVING STUDENT HANDBOOK …

Chapter 8 Tall Buildings Strategy - Transforming London · Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework Chapter 8 Tall Building Strategy Mayor of London 115 Chapter

Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Area Transport Study

Battersea Flower Station

Battersea Park Estate - UCL · Battersea village to Nine Elms, still present west of Battersea Bridge Road, but lost further eastwards. Linking these was Ferry Lane, predecessor of

Integrated Effects of Disruptions and ELMs ELMs on

Battersea Rise

Apresentação ELMS

Nine Elms station passive air quality monitoring October 2017...DOC NO. FLO-N203-2360000-HSE-RPT-00007 Rev. 48.0 Nine Elms Passive Air Quality Monitoring Northern Line Extension Main

The City Docklands Stratford Paddington White City King’s Cross Central London submarket Vauxhall-Nine Elms-Battersea hat A report that measures the volume of oﬃce development

Dukg's Meadow BARÑES a son BATTERSEA Nine Elms Risk of … · WIMBLEDON FOR ANY USE OF THIS DOC FOLLOWING AECONCS EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO SUCH USE, AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH

Energy Masterplan for Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea

Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea · The local story The Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea area is the fastest changing neighbourhood in Zone 1. Almost 5,000 residential units have been completed

Deborah Elms

Nine Elms London’s newest destination - CBRE Residential UK · The transformation of Vauxhall, Nine Elms Battersea ... Over the next decade and beyond, ... ge's R a d ad Q ue e

Battersea Manor London

Plans to extend the Northern line to Nine Elms and Battersea · Plans to extend the Northern line to Nine Elms and Battersea TfL’s response to the updated independent technical

Battersea Place: 73 Albert Bridge Road, Battersea, London ... · Battersea Place: 73 Albert Bridge Road, Battersea, London, SW11 4DS Author: Elderly Accommodation Counsel Subject:

Battersea Power Station

Northern Line Extension Nine Elms and Oval Community ...content.tfl.gov.uk/presentation-nine-elms-and-oval-clg-15-1-2015.pdf · 07/11/2014 Resident Kennington Lane Reported damaged

Central London Plan Update - UK Power Networks€¦ · 6 LONDON PLAN UPDATE 2017 LONDON PLAN UPDATE 2017 7 Calshot Street (now Grafton Way) Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) White

Draft - UCL · Draft Survey of London © English Heritage 2013 1 CHAPTER 4 . Nine Elms . Nine Elms is first heard of in 1645–6, when the Battersea churchwardens’

5 BATTERSEA DRAIN FIELD - Alberta.cadepartment/deptdocs.nsf/ba... · 2019-10-25 · Battersea Drain Field showing the Battersea Drain, the upstream (Station 201), downstream (Station

44 (0) 161 247 8287 [email protected] www ... · • The VNEB (Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea) Opportunity Area is a 195-hectare riverside district and Central London’s

Battersea Mattersbatterseasociety.org.uk/newsletters/summer2017.pdf · 2019. 2. 23. · Battersea Matters the newsletter of the Battersea Society Summer 2017 Don’t forget to visit

Chelsea to Battersea Tunnel - Barhale€¦ · Chelsea to Battersea Tunnel Energy Case Study Chelsea hospital grounds Battersea Park ... constraints and British tunnelling specifications

Queens Road Peckham Station – Zone 2 Onward …London Transport Museum Holborn Camberwell New Road Warner Road Camberwell New Road Sacred Heart School Kennington Nine Elms Lane Battersea

Documents

Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms ... Line... · NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO BATTERSEA AND NINE ELMS: FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUSINESS CASE METHODOLOGY Final Report December

Text of Northern Line Extension to Battersea & Nine Elms ... Line... · NORTHERN LINE EXTENSION TO...