West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Casecontent.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-orbital-strategic... · West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019 3 0

1

West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Case

June 2019

West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019

2

0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

1 The Approach to the Business Case ........................................................................... 23

2 Strategic Case ............................................................................................................. 24 2.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 24

2.2 Strategic context and the case for change ................................................................. 25

2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria ................................................................................. 43

2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs ............................................................. 44

2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements .............................................................. 44

2.6 Strategic Options ....................................................................................................... 44

2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO) ....................................... 57

2.8 Constraints and Dependencies ................................................................................. 77

3 Economic Case ........................................................................................................... 80 3.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 80

3.2 Option selection ........................................................................................................ 80

3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues ...................................................... 81

3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits .................................................................. 87

3.5 Economic Appraisal................................................................................................... 89

3.6 Economic Case Conclusion ....................................................................................... 90

4 Commercial Case ........................................................................................................ 92 4.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 92

4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications ........................ 92

4.3 Construction and operation ....................................................................................... 93

5 Financial Case ............................................................................................................ 95 5.1 Description ................................................................................................................ 95

5.2 Financial Impact of the Project .................................................................................. 95

5.3 Capital Costs Funding ............................................................................................... 96

5.4 Operating Costs Funding .......................................................................................... 99

6 Management Case .................................................................................................... 103 6.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 103

6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects ............................................. 103

6.3 Consents Strategy ................................................................................................... 103

6.4 Project assumptions ................................................................................................ 104

6.5 Project risk .............................................................................................................. 104

6.6 Governance ............................................................................................................ 105

6.7 Assurance ............................................................................................................... 105

6.8 Communication and stakeholder management ........................................................ 107

6.9 Project reporting ...................................................................................................... 107

6.10 Project milestones and timescales .......................................................................... 107

7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 108 7.1 Overall Assessment ................................................................................................ 108

7.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 109

8 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 110


3

0 Executive Summary

0.1 Overview

0.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to enhance public transport connectivity (in particular north-south ‘orbital’ connectivity) in west London in order to enable the delivery of new homes and jobs, and support mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport.

0.1.1.2 The current Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) is in ‘Phase One” of the iterative Business Case development process (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Business Case development phases

Source: DfT

0.1.1.3 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as Proposal 88:

“The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and Network Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground ‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.”

0.1.1.4 The scheme has also been referenced in west and north west London1 Local Planning Authorities’ (LPAs) local plans.

0.1.1.5 The scheme consists of a central core between South Acton and Neasden, with two branch options at either end, to Hendon and West Hampstead in the north, and to Hounslow and Kew Bridge in the south (Figure 2).

0.1.1.6 This SOBC shows that the WLO scheme has the potential to address three

critical strategic issues facing west and north west London by bringing land

into use for housing and employment, providing the connectivity needed to

address public transport severance, and delivering benefits to the wider

transport system, including for users of existing rail lines and the road

network.

1 West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith &

Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region.


4

0.1.1.7 The core WLO scheme (8tph) has been tested, alongside sensitivities

considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of

development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is

in the range of 1.4 – 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is

in the range 1.7 – 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to

high value for money.

0.1.1.8 Based on the findings of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the scheme to be taken forward to the next stage of business case development.

0.1.1.9 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to identify the preferred service pattern and the location and design of new infrastructure including the stations.

Figure 2: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)


5

0.2 Strategic Case

0.2.1.1 The Strategic Case sets out the need for investment in a transport intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes and employment space to be built, improve north-south ‘orbital’ connectivity, and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport network

London is growing and west and north west London is the UK’s second largest economic powerhouse

West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means it will

have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment growth over

the next 25 years

0.2.1.2 West and north west London is home to significant employment clusters and eight Opportunity Areas, including Old Oak/Park Royal which will become a national and regional gateway following the opening of the Elizabeth line and HS2 station. The areas around Park Royal and Heathrow in particular also have a high concentration of valuable Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL). These characteristics mean the sub-region will need to play a major role in delivering both the new homes and jobs that London needs over the next 25 years.

Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser development and employment growth in west and north west London

New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and north west

London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces

Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and

employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable growth

across the sub-region

0.2.1.3 London’s population has been increasing and is forecast to grow from 8.7 million to 10.8 million by 20412. This growth means that there is an increase in demand for new and affordable homes. The draft new London Plan recognises that all LPAs will need to significantly increase housing delivery to meet the Capital’s need, particularly LPAs in outer London, where 55 per cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered3. The draft new London Plan sets ambitious housing delivery targets, including for LPAs in west and north west London. LB Barnet, LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hounslow and OPDC collectively account for 14.5 per cent of London’s forecast population growth.

2 Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2017

3 Draft new London Plan 2017


6

Table 1: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in west and north west London

Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target

Barnet 31,340 Brent 29,150 Ealing 28,070 Hounslow 21,820 OPDC 13,670

Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1)

0.2.1.4 Some of this growth will be accommodated in Opportunity Areas at Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal, Wembley and the Great West Corridor. Wembley and Hounslow Town Centre are also designated Housing Zones4, planned to deliver 2,840 and 3,900 homes respectively. Together these all form an arc across west and north west London (Figure 3).

0.2.1.5 These Opportunity Areas are poorly connected both to each other and to existing town centres. This limits access to amenities, services, and employment and leisure opportunities for both existing and new residents and employees.

Figure 3: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971 Source: GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary

4 In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his

Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of 75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs


7

0.2.1.6 New public transport capacity and connectivity is needed to enable the further delivery of new homes and jobs, both in existing neighbourhoods and town centres, and in areas which have previously been undeveloped or underdeveloped5. Enhanced public transport capacity could enable existing neighbourhoods to grow sustainably while new public transport connections could help unlock the full growth potential of parts of west and north west London.

0.2.1.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these Opportunity Areas will allow them to develop as an interconnected sub-regional network, enabling new employment centres to be supported by nearby new residential neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This should help unlock additional new homes, over and above those unlocked by committed schemes. Supporting this Good Growth6 will help London to become a city where walking, cycling and using public transport is the norm as its population increases to over 10 million.

Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north west London

New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between Burnt

Oak/Colindale and Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas and Old Oak/Park

Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas as these places experience transformational

growth

Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters in LB

Hounslow and areas to the north, including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area,

to ensure these areas can continue to grow sustainably

Connecting existing radial rail routes to fast, reliable orbital public transport services

would enable commuters from outside of London to access existing and growing

employment clusters across west and north west London by public transport

0.2.1.8 Only 57 per cent of trips with an origin in west London are currently made by active, efficient and sustainable modes. In order to achieve the MTS aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable modes, boroughs across west and north west London must see significant mode shift over the next two decades. Public transport will need to become a more attractive alternative to the car, particularly for longer orbital trips where significant barriers exist.

5 This does not include the Green Belt

6 The draft new London Plan describes Good Growth under policies GG1 – GG6


8

Table 2: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by sub-region

Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share

South 70% 54% West 61% 57% North 59% 58% East 56% 63% Central 37% 83%

Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17)

0.2.1.9 Achieving this will require three key connectivity challenges in west and north west London to be addressed:

Connectivity between LB Barnet and West London

Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop (currently served by South

West Trains) and the North London line (currently served by London

Overground)

Inter-connectivity from radial corridors such as those served by the

Jubilee and Bakerloo lines and Thameslink services to destinations in

the wider sub-region

0.2.1.10 There is a gap in orbital public transport provision between west and north west London. Public transport journey times between LB Brent and LB Barnet are relatively poor. For example, it takes the same time to travel north from Harlesden to Brent Cross (5km) as it does to travel south to Southfields (10km).

Figure 4: Journey time by public transport from Harlesden town centre

Map data ©2019 Google Source: TfL WebCAT Map data ©2019 Google

0.2.1.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas of housing and employment growth in north west London, particularly around

Brent Cross

Southfields


9

Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Given the strong pull that is forecast to emerge between these locations (resulting from housing and employment growth in the former and employment growth in particular in the latter), it is vital that a competitive public transport option is provided to ensure that new trips are made by active, efficient and sustainable modes.

0.2.1.12 Orbital connectivity from LB Hounslow is constrained by poor interchange options between the Hounslow Loop line (served by Southwestern Railway) and existing orbital rail such as the North London line (served by London Overground). The requirement to make several interchanges also acts as a barrier to spontaneous and independent travel for disabled and older people.

0.2.1.13 This serves to limit public transport connectivity to the emerging employment centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Residents of LB Hounslow would have to make indirect journeys to access employment opportunities at Old Oak by public transport, while residents in growing neighbourhoods further north, such as North Acton, would not have competitive public transport options to access jobs in the nearby Great West Corridor.

0.2.1.14 This would have negative implications for mode share as these employment centres grow, and/or act as a brake on development if businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers and employees. A better public transport option is needed to ensure this employment growth does not increase car dependency, and is not constrained by poor public transport connectivity.

0.2.1.15 The public transport network in west and north west London struggles to cater for longer-distance orbital trips as there is a lack of orbital public transport provision to link high-capacity radial lines together. This means that the public transport network operates as a series of corridors oriented towards central London, rather than as a regional system, significantly limiting travel choice and connectivity.

0.2.1.16 The effects of this are also felt across the Wider South East, as west and north west London’s employment mix draws commuters from well beyond the London boundary, with some of the highest volumes of in-commuting outside of central London.

0.2.1.17 For longer trips to be competitive by public transport, existing high frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back-track via central London. Improved orbital connectivity is critical to ensure employment growth across the sub-region does not exacerbate highway congestion.

0.2.1.18 While the Elizabeth Line will deliver new radial connectivity towards the CAZ and Isle of Dogs, the impact on orbital connectivity within the sub-


10

region will be relatively limited outside of changes to the bus network to improve links to Elizabeth line stations. Further intervention is needed.

Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to address congestion and crowding in west and north west London

A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to reduce

congestion on the road network in west and north west London

Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate pressure

on the Piccadilly and West London lines

0.2.1.19 As a result of poor orbital public transport connectivity, many north-south movements in west and north west London are considerably faster and easier to make by car. Congestion is high where there are gaps in the public transport network, particularly in the Harlesden area and around Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge. The A406 North Circular Road between Chiswick Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been reported as the most congested in the UK.7 High levels of congestion are reflected in problems of poor air quality in these locations8.

0.2.1.20 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability, and brings associated noise and air quality disbenefits to residents. Figure 5 maps inter peak delay for key west and north west London corridors.

Figure 5: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden – Hendon; Kew – Acton)

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

Delay measurement is the speed compared to the night time speed (10pm to 6am free flow) measured in minutes per km

Source: Trafficmaster (2016)

7 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799

8 http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp

High delay around

Harlesden town

centre and between

Harlesden and

Brent Cross along

A406

High delay on A406

north of Ealing

High delay

between Chiswick

Roundabout and

Kew Bridge


11

0.2.1.21 With only committed investment, crowding on the Piccadilly and West London lines will become severe in the future, adding further barriers to orbital travel by public transport. This could constrain sustainable housing and employment growth in Opportunity Areas, Housing Zones and locally-identified growth and regeneration areas across the sub-region and more widely.

0.2.1.22 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding. Furthermore, by providing additional north-south capacity, and alternative routes avoiding central London, new public transport connectivity could help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of the most congested parts of the network. This would deliver more resilience to the transport network as a whole.

Objectives

0.2.1.23 These challenges highlight the need for a transport intervention in west and north west London. In response, TfL and the West London Alliance (WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Scheme objectives

Objective A – New homes & jobs

Objective B – Orbital transport connectivity

Objective C – Public transport capacity

Enable the delivery of new homes and jobs in west and north west London in line with the principles of Good Growth (MTS Policy 21)

Enhance orbital public transport connectivity to and between major trip attractors in west and north west London (e.g. town centres and Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Royal, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood and the Great West Corridor) to support mode shift towards active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport, and west and north west London’s continued economic growth

Enhance public transport capacity in west and north west London to relieve pressure on existing corridors and ensure the resilience of the public transport network as population grows

Strategic options

0.2.1.24 It has been noted that any preferred option must be compliant with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets Approach and the principles of Good Growth, while delivering a mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport. Furthermore, the preferred option must have the potential to unlock additional new homes, over and above those being unlocked by other committed schemes.

0.2.1.25 Seven strategic options have been considered: highway capacity schemes, walk/cycle schemes, enhanced bus priority, bus transit, light rail, heavy rail and Tube. Heavy rail has the greatest potential to deliver against the three objectives while ensuring alignment with policy.


12

Table 4: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of construction and operation

Scheme intervention

Alignment with policy frameworks

Objective A: New Homes

Objective B: Orbital transport connectivity

Objective C: Public transport capacity

Complexity of construction and operation

Heavy rail (WLO)

Yes High High High Medium

Underground Yes High High High Very High Bus transit Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium

Light rail Depends on scope

High Medium High High

Enhanced bus priority

Yes No Medium Low Low

Walk/cycle schemes

Yes Low Low No Low

Highway capacity schemes

No N/A N/A N/A N/A

The case for the WLO

The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000 new

homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was applied.

The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office and

6,000 industrial jobs.

The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to

access growing employment hubs, such as Old Oak and the Great West Corridor

0.2.1.26 An 8tph option and 4tph sensitivity have been appraised in detail. The core 8tph option has been fully appraised in this SOBC, alongside a 4tph sensitivity.

0.2.1.27 The core option is a 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon and 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead service, providing an 8tph service through the central core as shown in Figure 6. The alternative service pattern is a 4tph Hounslow – Hendon service as shown in Figure 7.

0.2.1.28 The options considered would be refined further in future business cases.

Figure 6: WLO core option service pattern (8tph)

Figure 7: WLO alternative service pattern (4tph)


13

0.2.1.29 The WLO could enable the delivery of new homes and support employment growth. A development capacity study was commissioned to identify potential development and employment that could come forward as a result of the scheme9. An additional 8,800 residential units could be unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area, in compliance with the draft new London Plan and current local planning policy. Applying a flexible approach to planning, while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan, could unlock an additional c. 29,000 residential units, including through LPAs and the GLA agreeing to intensify the use of Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the redevelopment of social housing10.

Table 5: Summary of housing potential by LPA affected by WLO (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)

Local Planning Authority

Scenarios

Baseline WLO dependent Maximum development

Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711

Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22

Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609

Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672

Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240

Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489

OPDC11

19,383 19,383 19,383

Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143

Total 48,016 56,819 77,269 Source: SNC Lavalin

0.2.1.30 Similarly to housing, a new public transport link could support additional employment capacity along the route.

0.2.1.31 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)12.

0.2.1.32 By improving public transport connections, the WLO should also support employment, particularly in high value SIL areas and play an important role in maintaining town centre viability more generally across the sub-region.

The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent

Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas

9 A “bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development potential based on

information from the London Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA). To help deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is also being strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a third per of growth in the form of small sites development. 10

Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide where applicable 11

Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport schemes 12

Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be served by Brentford and Syon Lane


14

Richmond

Willesden

Junction

Hounslow

Ealing

Broadway

West

Hampstead

Hendon

Harlesden

Neasden

Cricklewood

Brent Cross

West

Greenford

to Clapham

Junction and

Waterloo

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to Stratford

Kew

Bridge

to Watford, Stanmore and Luton

to Heathrow, Slough

and Reading

Old Oak

Key

London Underground

Other Rail

Bakerloo

Central

District

Jubilee

Metropolitan

Piccadilly

London Overground

Elizabeth line

Thameslink

Great Western Railway

South Western Railway

London Northwestern Railway

High Speed 2

West London Orbital

to the West

Midlands and beyond

to Feltham

and Staines

The WLO would provide a new direct link between town centres and employment

clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area

The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public transport

journeys across west and north west London and beyond (including Heathrow and

parts of Harrow) by linking eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic

interchange

0.2.1.33 The WLO could address orbital connectivity barriers by bridging the public transport connectivity gap between north and west London, providing a direct service between the Hounslow Loop line and the North London line, and feeding the future strategic interchange at Old Oak. This could deliver journey time benefits of up to 24 minutes between Brent Cross West and Ealing Broadway, and up to 20 minutes between Hounslow and Wembley.

Figure 8: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)

Richmond

Willesden

Junction

Ealing

Broadway

West

Hampstead

Harlesden

Cricklewood

Greenford

to Stratford


to Heathrow, Slough

and Reading

to Feltham

and Staines

Hendon

Neasden

Brent Cross

West

Hounslow Kew

Bridge

Old Oak

to Clapham

Junction and

Waterloo

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West

Midlands and beyond

The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing congestion

along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west London

The WLO could alleviate crowding on congested rail and Tube lines

0.2.1.34 These journey time savings would make public transport more competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west London, supporting mode shift and helping to reduce congestion on the

New interchanges

enabling journeys

between

Thameslink, Jubilee

and

Bakerloo/Watford

DC corridors and

destinations to the

south, without

needing to travel via

central London

New direct link between Hounslow Loop and Old Oak,

enabling journeys between Surrey and Old Oak/Park Royal.


15

road network and improve air quality. Furthermore, by providing competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO could also help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections of the radial public transport network.

Delivering the WLO

0.2.1.35 A high level technical and operational assessment has been conducted on engineering complexity, constructability, challenges and risks. Although no ‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, this work has established some significant challenges to delivering the scheme that would need to be considered through further work. Further feasibility work would therefore be required.

0.2.1.36 Key operational and planning constraints relating to stations and capacity, construction, service trade-offs, rail freight, rail emissions and planning policy have been identified.

0.2.1.37 It is important to note that the continued development of Old Oak as a

strategic interchange is key to realising many of the connectivity benefits of

the WLO scheme.

0.3 Economic Case

0.3.1.1 Two service patterns have been appraised for the preferred heavy rail option:

8tph core option; including 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon

4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon

0.3.1.2 In addition to these two service patterns variants, two alternative land use scenarios have been modelled:

A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 8,800 homes)

A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional 29,300 homes)

0.3.1.3 Total capital cost was calculated as £273m in 2017/18 prices and £179m over 60 years in 2010 prices and values.

0.3.1.4 Total annual operating costs were calculated as £26.3m and £13.9m in 2018/19 prices respectively for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns.

0.3.1.5 Revenue calculations for each service pattern and service pattern variant are set out in Table 6.


16

Table 6: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4pth sensitivity including

assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)

8tph Sensitivity: 4tph Alternative Land Use: WLO dependent Dev

Alternative Land Use: Max Dev

Annual passenger journeys

Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)


Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)


Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)


Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)

West London Orbital

11.47 15.33 7.91 11.87 12.15 16.16 13.33 17.56

London Overground

-1.20 -1.27 -0.56 -0.58 -1.34 -1.43 -1.46 -1.57

London Underground

-2.75 -7.34 -1.77 -4.69 -3.14 -7.92 -3.67 -9.18

Crossrail -0.01 1.34 0.05 1.43 -0.08 1.25 -0.20 1.23

National Rail (other services)

0.22 -1.59 -0.24 -1.65 0.17 -1.62 0.14 -2.05

Bus -4.42 -4.21 -3.23 -3.23 -4.75 -4.48 -5.62 -5.02

Total 3.31 2.27 2.16 3.15 3.00 1.97 2.53 0.97

sub-total (excluding franchised rail)

3.08 3.86 2.41 4.80 2.83 3.59 2.38 3.02

Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph & 4tph vs Ref Case. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs

Ref Case with alternative land use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per

cent dependent development), the forecast revenue would be higher.

0.3.1.6 For the 8tph service pattern, whilst WLO services themselves are forecast to generate just over £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after consideration of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground services, is a much more modest £2m.

0.3.1.7 For the 4tph service pattern, net revenue is higher (£3m) despite the revenue directly on WLO services being over 20 per cent lower at just under £12m. This results from higher levels of abstraction from other modes (notably bus and London Underground) in the 8tph scenario.

0.3.1.8 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding changes in generalised time due to WLO were calculated and weighted by demand to represent the journey time benefits of WLO, as shown in Table 7. These include benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the Reference Case) and new (trips attracted to public transport by WLO) public transport users.

Table 7: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph scenario, 4tph

sensitivity & alternative land use scenarios, Whole Model benefits

WLO 8tph Sensitivity: WLO 4tph

Alternative land use scenario : WLO 8tph + WLO dependent Dev

Alternative land use scenario: WLO 8tph + Max

Dev

Existing Users

178,106 131,450 192,049

233,996

New Users

13,745 12,165 13,956

14,292

Total 191,850 143,614 206,005

248,289

Source: Railplan


17

0.3.1.9 In addition to these benefits, externalities resulting from an increase in rail passenger km have been considered and calculated. These impacts are small compared to other benefits.

0.3.1.10 It is anticipated that the scheme would provide the following non-monetised benefits:

Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme

Social impact, through facilitating new housing development in the vicinity of the scheme

Supporting strategic transport planning and policy, in accordance with the London Plan

Environmental benefits, by encouraging mode shift from highway to public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance between home and job locations

0.3.1.11 Table 8 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the standard 8tph option, the 4tph sensitivity and the two alternative land use scenarios. In addition to these options and sensitivities, a further two cost sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns where capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope.

0.3.1.12 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

0.3.1.13 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to refine the options and identify the preferred service pattern.


18

Table 8: Appraisal results (60 years)

8tph core

Alternative land use: 8tph WLO dependent

Dev scenario

Alternative land use:

8tph Max Dev scenario

Cost sensitivity: 8tph +£100m capital cost

Service level

sensitivity: 4tph


Costs and Revenues

Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244

Road Infrastructure cost saving

0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309

Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553

Incremental Total Revenue

66 58 28 66 92 92

Total Financial Effect (NFE)

-698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461

Social Benefits

Time Saving (£m) 977 1049 1264 977 731 731

Road Decongestion (£m)

67 65 54 67 70 70

Accidents (£m) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Greenhouse emissions (£m)

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Local Air Quality (£m)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Noise (£m) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Benefits (£m) 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799

Benefits

Present Value of Project Cost (£m) - including OBU

765 765 765 830 488 553

Net Revenue (£m, PV)

66 58 28 66 92 92

Indirect Taxation Loss (£m, PV)

3 2 2 3 3 3

Present Value of Social Benefit (£m) - PVB

1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799

Present Value of Project Benefit (£m)

1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802

PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461

NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341

BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0

Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time

Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values

Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario

Note costs for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as interventions on both northern branches are included

0.4 Commercial Case

0.4.1.1 Assuming the project progresses and further design details are determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation


19

and management and the approach to the financing of the project. All potential suppliers would be expected to be in compliance with the GLA Group Responsible Procurement Policy.

0.4.1.2 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by either TfL in the event that any future service were to be operated as part of the London Overground, or by Network Rail as the owner and provider of Great Britain’s National Rail infrastructure.

0.4.1.3 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground.

0.5 Financial Case

0.5.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the very early nature of this estimate, an 80 per cent adjustment was added to reach an estimate of £273m13. We have also considered a sensitivity which increases costs by a further £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Table 9 sets out the scheme costs in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost upon completion of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by WebTag guidance for the generation of the BCR) for both the core estimate and cost sensitivity.

Table 9: Capital costs

Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn14

Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values

Core estimate £273m £321m £179m

Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m

0.5.1.2 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be balanced against revenue.

0.5.1.3 The following sources have been considered as options to fund the capital costs of this scheme:

Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned sites

Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new development unlocked by the scheme

Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions, workplace parking levies etc.

13 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP, Oct 2017

14 Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1


20

0.5.1.4 Although the assessed selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the scheme in present value terms, as shown in Figure 9, there would be a time lag in the availability of funding. Further work is therefore required to confirm and then secure a funding and financing solution for the scheme.

Figure 9: Cash/debt balance

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

400,000,000

01

Jan

18

01

Jan

20

01

Jan

22

01

Jan

24

01

Jan

26

01

Jan

28

01

Jan

30

01

Jan

32

01

Jan

34

01

Jan

36

01

Jan

38

01

Jan

40

01

Jan

42

01

Jan

44

01

Jan

46

01

Jan

48

01

Jan

50

£

Debt balance Cash balance

Source: WLO Funding Study analysis.

0.5.1.5 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this scheme:

Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts, including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the affordability of the operating side of the scheme

Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the services in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable

Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non-farebox income

0.5.1.6 Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are outlined in Table 10. Station operating costs are not included in this analysis. Four new stations would require operation15, and assuming and indicative annual operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance, utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating costs.

15 Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be

part of existing operational station by time of opening.


21

Table 10: Annual operating costs

8tph scenario (2018/19 prices)

4tph sensitivity (2018/19 prices)

Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m

Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m

Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m

Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m

Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m

Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m

Total £26.3m £13.8m Source: TfL

0.5.1.7 For the 8tph scenario, an annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset by revenue abstracted from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of £4m of net revenue. For the 4tph alternative net revenue is slightly higher (£5m) due to different levels of abstraction.

0.5.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to materially change the operating funding requirement.

0.5.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to passenger revenue of £4-5m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding requirement and need for significant operating subsidy. Options to remove any operating subsidy will need to be identified as part of future phases of scheme development work. The housing and commercial development stimulated by WLO could create an opportunity for increased passenger revenue that could be significant in reducing this. This would be a matter for further consideration in future stages of the project.

0.6 Management Case

0.6.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have a proven track record of developing, promoting and implementing significant infrastructure projects and securing consents required, and would ensure that strong project governance principles are followed. The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s established project assurance procedures.

0.6.1.2 The full involvement of the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and through the WLA would help minimise planning policy and other regulatory risks.

0.6.1.3 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has been identified that the principal consent required to authorise the works (including land acquisition) is likely to be a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO).

0.6.1.4 Table 11 outlines key indicative project milestones.


22

Table 11: Project milestones

Milestone Description Date

Further feasibility 2019-2021 Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022 Construction Early 2020s Operation 2026 for Phase 1

2029 for Phase 2


23

1 The Approach to the Business Case

1.1.1.1 The decision making process, of which this Strategic Outline Business

Case forms part, 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

current Strategic Outline Business Case is in ‘Phase One” of this iterative

process, with two further future stages of development to follow.

Figure 10: Business Case development phases

Source: DfT

1.1.1.2 The current ‘Phase One’ focuses on articulating the need for the

intervention and summarising the range of options developed and

considered, and:

is used to set out the strategic fit of the project with achieving 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

1.1.1.3 If the project were to progress, ‘Phase Two’ would reconfirm the

conclusions from ‘Phase One’ and concentrate on a more detailed

assessment of the options to find the best solution, culminating the

preparation of an Outline Business Case, which would build on this

Strategic Outline Business Case.

1.1.1.4 The final phase in the process, ‘Phase Three’, would result in the

production of the Full Business Case – this would accompany the

application for powers (including planning consent and land acquisition).

1.1.1.5 This work is being taken forward by TfL in conjunction with the West

London Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) working through the West

London Alliance (WLA) with detailed development of the Business Case

being jointly overseen by TfL and WLA officers.


24

2 Strategic Case

2.1 Description

2.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to

enhance public transport connectivity (in particular orbital connectivity) in

west and north west London16.

2.1.1.2 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as

Proposal 88:

“The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and

Network Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground

‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and

Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.”

2.1.1.3 The role of the Strategic Case is to set out the need for investment for a

transport intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes

and employment space to be built, improve north-south orbital connectivity,

and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport

network.

2.1.1.4 The strategic case is structured into eight sections

i. Description

ii. Strategic context and the case for change, including the housing,

connectivity and mode shift, and congestion and crowding challenges

facing west London

iii. Objectives for a transport intervention to address these challenges

iv. Overview of existing arrangements and the limitations of the do-nothing

option

v. Scope and service requirements for a transport intervention

vi. Strategic options, including a qualitative assessment of how these could

meet the objectives

vii. The case for the WLO option, demonstrating that the scheme would meet

the objectives, aligns with national, regional and local policy, could be

technically and operationally feasible, and could be delivered.

viii. Overview of key constraints and dependencies

16 West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith &

Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region.


25

2.2 Strategic context and the case for change

2.2.1 London is growing

2.2.1.1 London is the most productive economic region in the UK. Home to just

over 13 per cent of the UK’s population, it generates around 23 per cent of

the GVA and more than 25 per cent of national tax revenues17. London’s

success means that more people want to live and work in the city.

Population is forecast to grow from 8.7 million today to 10.8 million by

204118. This growth is expected to generate about 6 million additional trips

each day by 2041.

2.2.1.2 Despite its success, London’s future international competitiveness is

threatened by significant transport challenges and a severe housing

shortage. The combination of population and employment growth means

more public transport capacity is needed and more affordable, well-

connected homes must be built. This needs to take place in the context of

environmental challenges, notably London’s poor air quality and national

commitments on carbon reduction. In order to sustain its success in the

face of these challenges, London must become a city where walking,

cycling and public transport becomes the most appealing and practical

choice for many more journeys.

2.2.1.3 These challenges drive the aims of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).

The MTS, adopted in March 2018, sets out the Mayor’s vision for transport

in London to 2041. Integral to this vision is the aim to reduce car

dependency in favour of walking, cycling and public transport use. This is

stated in Policy 1, which sets the aim for 80 per cent of all trips in London

to be made by these active, efficient and sustainable modes of travel by

2041. The Strategy is underpinned by the Healthy Streets Approach, which

provides the framework for putting human health and experience at the

heart of planning the city.

2.2.1.4 To accommodate the expected rate of population growth, the London

Strategic Housing Market Assessment concludes that to address the

projected growth in households, the Capital needs to deliver 66,000 new

homes every year between now and 2041. In 2017/18 40,000 new homes

were built. This is the highest rate of delivery for over 40 years, but is still

well short of the number required to meet demand.

17 Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018

18 Ibid


26

2.2.1.5 These new homes will need to be delivered following the principles of

Good Growth. This means ensuring that people living in new housing in

central, inner and outer London have travel options other than to drive to

the shops, to school or to work. Supporting Good Growth is critical to

ensuring London becomes a city where walking, cycling and using public

transport is the norm as its population increases to over 10 million.

2.2.2 West and north west London is the UK’s second largest economic powerhouse

West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means

it will have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment

growth over the next 25 years

2.2.2.1 Home to major employment clusters including Heathrow, Park Royal and

the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’, west and north west London is the

most significant economic region outside of the CAZ, contributing 20 per

cent to London’s GDP and having the highest productivity per worker out

of any London sub-region19. West London’s employment clusters are home

to agglomerations of major industries, including transport, logistics, pharma

and media. The region acts as the UK’s global gateway through Heathrow,

and will become London’s gateway to the north via HS2 at Old Oak

Common.

2.2.2.2 The Park Royal/A40/Heathrow corridor has high demand for industrial land

use, driven by warehousing and logistics, and airport-related activities. The

London Industrial Land Demand study notes that LB Brent and LB Ealing

have some of the highest levels of net demand for industrial land in

London20. These boroughs have a high concentration of Strategic

Industrial Locations (SIL). This land is critical to the effective functioning to

London’s economy as it can accommodate activities which, by virtue of

their scale, noise, odours, dust, emissions, hours of operation and/or

vehicle movements, can raise tensions with other land uses21.

19 West London Alliance – West London Economic Assessment

20 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ilds_final_report_june_2017.pdf

21 Draft new London Plan


27

Figure 11: Great West Corridor: ‘The Golden Mile’

2.2.2.3 West and north west London is also a region with significant growth

potential. Some of London’s most significant Opportunity Areas, including

Old Oak/Park Royal, which will experience transformational change over

the next decade, are located in the region. In total eight of London’s

Opportunity Areas are located in west and north west London22.

2.2.2.4 These characteristics mean west and north west London will play a critical

role in delivering both the new jobs and homes London needs over the

next 25 years. However, in order to fulfil its potential both for London and

UK plc, it needs a transport network that can support population and

employment growth in a sustainable way.

2.2.3 Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser development and employment growth in west and north west London

New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and

north west London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces

Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and

employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable

growth across the sub-region

2.2.3.1 The draft new London Plan and LPA local plans recognise the need to

significantly increase housing delivery to meet the Capital’s needs. This is

22 Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Great West Corridor, Harrow & Wealdstone, Old

Oak/Park Royal, Southall, Wembley, White City


28

a pressing issue for all of London but particularly in outer London where 63

per cent of London’s population growth to 2041 is expected23 and 55 per

cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered24. Population growth is

expected across outer London, with notable pressures between LB Barnet

and LB Hounslow in west and north west London, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Population growth 2017 - 2041


Source: Housing-led population forecast, GLA 2016-based demographic projections

2.2.3.2 Table 12 shows that each of the four boroughs along the arc from LB

Barnet to LB Hounslow is projected to see population growth of between

60,000 and 100,000 in the period to 2041. These four boroughs collectively

account for 14.5 per cent of London’s forecast population growth.

Table 12: Population forecasts – selected boroughs in west and north west London

Borough 2016 Population 2041 Population (projected)

% increase

Barnet 386,200 485,800 26 % Brent 329,100 394,500 20 % Ealing 343,500 405,600 18 % Hounslow 271,500 331,200 22 %

Source: GLA Central Trend 2016-based

2.2.3.3 The draft new London Plan proposes ambitious housing delivery targets

for west and north west London, in particular for the five LPAs along the

23 GLA central projection (2016-base)

24 Draft new London Plan (2017)

High population growth is

projected for outer London areas,

notably around Old Oak, Brent

Cross, Hendon and Wembley


29

arc stretching between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow, with ten year

completion targets totalling 124,000 for these boroughs and the OPDC.

Table 13: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in

west and north west London

Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target

Barnet 31,340 Brent 29,150 Ealing 28,070 Hounslow 21,820 OPDC 13,670

Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1)

2.2.3.4 High employee-job growth is also expected across west and north west

London as shown in Figure 13. There is projected to be 146,000 new

employee jobs in west and north west London by 2041.

Figure 13: Employee jobs growth 2016 - 2041


Source: GLA employee jobs projections 2016-2041

2.2.3.5 New public transport connections are important to make parts of London

viable places to build homes and workspaces for the first time, or at

increased densities. Enhanced public transport capacity can enable

existing neighbourhoods and employment clusters to grow.

2.2.3.6 There are five Opportunity Areas lying along the arc between LB Barnet

and LB Hounslow as shown in Figure 14. There are also designated

Housing Zones25 at Wembley (2,840 new homes) and Hounslow Town

25 In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his

Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of 75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs.

High employee job growth in some outer

London boroughs, particularly in the west

and north west (LB Hounslow, LB

Hillingdon, LB Barnet)


30

Centre (3,900 new homes) and a range of locally-identified and designated

regeneration areas here. At present these areas are poorly connected to

each other, meaning new residents would find it difficult to access most of

the services, and employment and leisure opportunities in neighbouring

areas, despite the relatively short distances between them. This could

constrain growth in the longer-term, either due to new developments

adding to traffic congestion, or sites becoming less attractive to developers

due to poor connectivity.

Figure 14: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London


Source: GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary

2.2.3.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these areas will allow

them to develop as an interconnected regional network, enabling new

employment centres to be supported by nearby new residential

neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This could reduce

dependency on car travel within the sub-region, and pressure on heavily

used radial rail links to central London. This will help to deliver new homes

and develop the Opportunity Areas, Home Zones and local regeneration

priority areas to their full potential and help to drive economic growth

across the sub-region.

An arc of growth potential

stretches across west

and north west London

from Brent Cross towards

Hounslow, incorporating

Burnt Oak/Colindale,

Brent Cross/Cricklewood,

Wembley, Old Oak/Park

Royal and Great West

Corridor Opportunity

Areas.


31

2.2.3.8 Between these Opportunity Areas there are Metropolitan town centres at

Ealing and Hounslow, the Major town centre of Wembley, District town

centres at Cricklewood, Harlesden, Neasden, Acton and Brentford,

London’s largest area of concentrated industrial activity at Park Royal, and

high volumes of transport and logistics, and creative, media and

broadcasting jobs along the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’. While

employment growth will continue to be highest in the Central Activities

Zone (CAZ), high growth in employee jobs is also forecast for several west

and north west London boroughs and much of this will take place in these

town centres and employment clusters. This growth relies on maintaining

and improving a well-connected local and sub-regional transport network.

2.2.3.9 The success of these regional employment centres depends on easy

access to employees and customers. It is therefore vital that residents from

across the sub-region can access these centres using active, efficient and

sustainable modes, and that well-connected new homes are delivered

across the sub-region for the employees and customers who will sustain

these centres’ continued economic success.

2.2.4 Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north west London

New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between

Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Burnt Oak/Colindale Opportunity Areas and the

Old Oak/Park Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas, particularly as these

places experience transformational growth

Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters

(including the Great West Corridor) in LB Hounslow and areas to the north,

including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area, to ensure these areas can

continue to grow sustainably

Connecting existing radial rail routes to fast, reliable orbital public transport

services would enable commuters from outside of London to access existing

and growing employment clusters across west and north west London by

public transport rather than by car

Mode share and connectivity context

2.2.4.1 Within outer London, around 60 per cent of trips are made by walking,

cycling and public transport. In order to achieve the MTS mode shift aim,

this will need to rise to 75 per cent in the context of 1 million additional trips

being made every day.


32

2.2.4.2 70 per cent of these car trips are short enough to feasibly be switched to

walking, cycling or public transport26, but such a switch is dependent on

new or more appealing alternatives being provided. Therefore, providing

an attractive public transport alternative for trips currently made by car will

be crucial to achieving these aims. This means improving links to outer

London town centres and ensuring new developments are designed and

connected in a way that reduces the need to travel by car.

Figure 15: Mode shares for travel within and between central, inner, outer and outside

London

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018

2.2.4.3 As shown in Table 14, car ownership in west London is the second highest

out of London’s five sub-regions27. Car ownership is associated with lower

sustainable mode share28. Car dependency means the sub-region has the

second lowest active, efficient and sustainable mode share in London, at

only 57 per cent.

Table 14: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by TfL sub-region

Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share

South 70% 54% West 61% 57% North 59% 58% East 56% 63% Central 37% 83%

Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17)

2.2.4.4 In order to achieve the MTS overall aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made

by active, efficient and sustainable modes, boroughs across west and

north west London must see significant mode shift over the next two

decades, as shown in Table 15. This will necessitate improved public

26 LTDS 2014/15 – 2016/17

27 The TfL West London sub-region comprises LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith and Fulham, LB

Harrow, LB Hillingdon and LB Hounslow. LB Barnet is in the North London sub-region. 28

LTDS


33

transport connectivity throughout the entire sub-region, so that journey

times are more competitive versus the car.

Table 15: Walking, cycling and public transport % mode share by borough resident based on

average daily trips

Borough Observed Trajectory

2012/13 to 2014/15

2013/14 to 2015/16

2014/15 to 2016/17

2021 2041

Hammersmith & Fulham

75 78 81 82 89

Barnet 50 52 55 59 72 Brent 62 62 65 66 78 Ealing 62 62 63 63 76 Harrow 48 48 48 50 64 Hillingdon 43 41 43 44 56 Hounslow 55 53 56 59 71

Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17), TfL Strategic Models (consistent with MTS evidence base 2018)

2.2.4.5 The opening of the Elizabeth line will bring about a step-change

improvement in radial connectivity between west London and the CAZ and

Isle of Dogs. Associated changes to the bus network will improve links to

Elizabeth line stations, thereby securing an improvement in connectivity for

origin-destination pairs within the sub-region with a radial element.

However north-south connectivity between town centres in the north of the

sub-region such as Wembley and Brent Cross, and those in the south such

as Hounslow, will not benefit in as significant a way. Similarly, while Ealing

and Acton will both benefit greatly from improved radial connectivity

through the CAZ and beyond, the Elizabeth line will not bring any

appreciable journey time benefits for trips from these town centres to less

distant District town centres such as Neasden and Brent Cross.

2.2.4.6 Comparing current journey times with forecast journey times when

committed improvements are delivered shows that the north-south corridor

will see little improvement at either end (Figure 16).


34

Figure 16: Public transport journey time change Harlesden and Brentford town centres

(2031)

Map data ©2019 Google

Source: TfL WebCAT Map data ©2019 Google

2.2.4.7 While committed schemes will improve connectivity within the sub-region,

particularly for radial trips, they will not address critical north-south orbital

connectivity challenges. This includes issues relating to severance caused

by roads and rail lines, gaps in the public transport network, and limited

interchange opportunities. Broadly this can be broken down into three

specific connectivity challenges:


35

Connectivity between west and north west London, relating to

severance and gaps in the public transport network

Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop and North London line,

relating to severance and limited interchange opportunities

Connectivity from radial corridors to destinations in the wider sub-

region, relating to gaps in the public transport network and limited

interchange opportunities

Connectivity between west and north west London

2.2.4.8 At the northern end of the corridor, there is a gap in orbital public transport

provision between west London and north west London principally

between LB Barnet and the rest of west London. This gap in orbital public

transport provision stretches across LB Brent and the M1 into LB Barnet,

where the only public transport option available is the bus.

2.2.4.9 Figure 17 shows how public transport journey times deteriorate rapidly

when moving across this corridor. From Hendon, journey times to Acton

are comparable to those to Stratford, despite the latter being considerably

further away. Similarly from Harlesden, journey times to the Brent Cross

area are comparable to those to Southfields, despite the latter being twice

the distance and south of the River Thames.

2.2.4.10 These discrepancies can be partly explained by the existence of orbital

rail links, such as the North London Line, Gospel Oak – Barking Line and

West London Line which demonstrates the impact of orbital rail on public

transport connectivity.

2.2.4.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas where

significant housing growth is expected in north London, particularly around

Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment

centre at Old Oak/Park Royal. Growth in these areas could be

complementary, with significant housing growth expected in the former,

and employment growth in the latter. As a result, a strong pull may emerge

between the locations. It is therefore vital that a competitive public

transport option is provided to ensure that new trips are made by active,

efficient and sustainable modes, and maximise the social and economic

benefits of this growth.

2.2.4.12 Poor connectivity between Old Oak and parts of north west London will

also limit its potential to be a gateway station for north west London when

HS2 is delivered, forcing customers to travel to Euston instead. This will

increase pressure on both Euston station itself, and the lines serving it.

Similarly, customers travelling by public transport towards Heathrow from

locations such as Brent Cross/Cricklewood would need to travel via central


36

London to access the Elizabeth line, which is less direct and adds further

pressure onto radial routes into central London.

2.2.4.13 Furthermore, existing residents in north London currently have poor

access to the shopping and leisure opportunities at Wembley and

residents of west London have poor access to the shopping and leisure

opportunities at Brent Cross. This limits choice for residents and access to

customers and employees for businesses in both locations.

Figure 17: Journey times by public transport from Hendon and Harlesden town centres



It takes the same time

to travel from Hendon

to Acton (9.5km) as it

does to Stratford (16

km)

It takes the same

time to travel from

Harlesden to Brent

Cross (5km) as it

does to Southfields

(10km)

Stratford

Acton

Brent Cross

Southfields


37

Connectivity between Hounslow Loop and North London line

2.2.4.14 At the southern end of the corridor, orbital connectivity is hindered by

poor interchange options. Interchange options between radial routes, such

as the Hounslow Loop Line, and existing orbital rail such as the North

London Line are limited. This forces passengers to travel out of their way

to interchange at Clapham Junction or Richmond, or make additional bus

stages to connect to the London Overground network in the Kew area, as

demonstrated by Figure 18.

Figure 18: Route options for customers travelling north from Hounslow Loop area

Source: TfL

2.2.4.15 This limits public transport connectivity to the emerging employment hubs

at Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor. Residents of LB

Hounslow in particular would have to make indirect journeys to access

employment opportunities at Old Oak/Park Royal by public transport, while

residents in growing neighbourhoods further north such as North Acton

would not have competitive public transport options to access jobs in the

nearby Great West Corridor. This could have negative implications for

mode share as these employment centres grow, or act as a brake on

development if businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers

and employees.

2.2.4.16 Figure 19 shows that poor north-south orbital connectivity similarly

creates a barrier to movement on the step-free network. The requirement

In the absence of direct

interchange to the North

London Line, passengers

beginning their journeys at

stations between Hounslow

and Brentford must either

back-track to Richmond or

take a bus to Gunnersbury to

access a north-south rail link

Passengers east of

Gunnersbury must back-track

to Clapham Junction as there

are no bus alternatives


38

to make complicated interchanges, in particular for journeys from the area

served by the Hounslow Loop Line to the north of the sub-region which

often requires rail-bus-rail combinations, also acts as a barrier to travel.

For trips from Brentford towards LB Brent and LB Barnet, where journey

times are already comparatively slow, journey times on the step-free

network are around 10 minutes slower.

Figure 19: Public transport step-free journey time difference from Brentford town centre



Connectivity between radial corridors and the wider sub-region

2.2.4.17 For longer-distance trips within the sub-region, the public transport

network is limited by a lack of orbital public transport provision to link the

high-capacity radial lines together, meaning the public transport operates

as a series of corridors oriented towards central London rather than a sub-

regional system. For longer-distance trips between places on different

radial corridors (e.g. Harrow to Great West Corridor, or Edgware to Park

Royal), the only public transport option might be to travel via central

London and then backtrack, or to combine multiple indirect bus and Tube

journeys. This in turn leads to more people either choosing to travel by car,

or being unable to make the journey (and therefore unable to access the

full array of employment, leisure and social opportunities in the wider sub-

region).

2.2.4.18 Poor orbital public transport connectivity also increases car dependency

for non-London originating trips. North and west London boroughs have

some of the highest volumes of in-commuting outside of central London.


39

LB Hounslow attracts 26,000 in-commuters from the Wider South East,

comparable to LB Islington. LB Barnet attracts over 15,000 in-commuters

from the Wider South East, more than LB Lambeth in central London29.

2.2.4.19 The car is dominant for these trips. Rail can usually only compete where

origin and destination are directly served, as otherwise most trips would

require interchange at a central London terminus.

2.2.4.20 For these types of trip to be competitive by public transport, existing high

frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital

public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the

fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back-

track via central London. This is critical to ensure employment growth in

the sub-region does not exacerbate congestion, and to ensure broader

access to employment, leisure and social opportunities for those who rely

on public transport to get around.

2.2.5 Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to address congestion and crowding in west and north west London

A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to

reduce congestion on the road network in west and north west London

Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate

pressure on the Piccadilly line and sections of the North and West London

lines

2.2.5.1 As a result of poor orbital connectivity, many north-south movements in

north west London must be made by car, even for relatively short journeys.

A consequence of this is high levels of congestion, particularly where there

are gaps in the public transport network.

2.2.5.2 There are only six north-south road crossings between Willesden Junction

and Harrow, a distance of over 8km. Between them these routes must

cater for over 200,000 motor vehicle movements every day30. Limited

north-south routes create bottlenecks with high levels of delay around the

North Circular/A5 and Harlesden, even in the inter-peak as shown in

Figure 20.

2.2.5.3 Further south, average delay is significant in Acton and between Chiswick

Roundabout and Kew Bridge, adding to journey times for trips between LB

Hounslow and the central and northern parts of the sub-region, as shown

in Figure 21, and the A406 North Circular Road between Chiswick

29 Census 2011

30 TfL Radial Screenline (2015)


40

Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been reported as the most

congested in the UK.31

Figure 20: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden - Hendon)




Figure 21: Inter peak traffic delay (Kew – Acton)




31 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799

High delay around

Harlesden town centre

and between Harlesden

and Brent Cross along

A406

High delay on A406 north

of Ealing

High delay between

Chiswick Roundabout

and Kew Bridge


41

2.2.5.4 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability,

which makes public transport a less attractive option. This in turn

encourages greater car dependency. It also affects overall public transport

resource requirements, as more buses are required to maintain route

frequency.

2.2.5.5 Congestion also causes associated environmental, social and economic

disbenefits. Residents across west London, particularly those living near

major roads, experience noise and air quality disbenefits. Longer journey

times carry an economic cost, as does the impact of congestion on the

efficiency of freight.

2.2.5.6 Figure 22 shows that, with only committed investment, crowding on radial

corridors including the District and Piccadilly lines, as well as sections of

the orbital North and West London lines, will become severe in the future.

This will add further barriers to orbital travel by public transport and could

constrain sustainable housing and employment growth in Opportunity

Areas, Housing Zones and locally-identified growth and regeneration areas

across the sub-region.

Figure 22: Crowding on the rail and Tube network, 2041, morning peak, with only committed

investment


2.2.5.7 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding. The

addition of new north-south capacity and connectivity would also enable

Crowding

forecast to be

severe on

Piccadilly and

District line

radials, and

sections of

the North and

West London

lines


42

many trips to be made by alternative routes that avoid central London. This

could help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of

the most congested parts of the network, strengthening the resilience of

the transport network as a whole.

2.2.5.8 Furthermore, by improving orbital public transport connectivity, more trips

would become competitive by public transport in the first place, resulting in

fewer car trips and reduced congestion. This would deliver journey time

benefits for bus passengers and noise and air quality benefits for

residents.


43

2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria

2.3.1.1 The challenges outlined above highlight the need for a transport

intervention in west and north west London. In response, TfL and the West

London Alliance (WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in

Table 16.

Table 16: Scheme objectives

Objectives Main benefits by stakeholder

group

Contribution towards

national and regional

policy

Objective A – New homes & jobs

Enable the delivery of new homes and

jobs in west and north west London in

line with the principles of Good Growth

(MTS Policy 21)

Londoners

Additional new homes and

jobs enabled

Residents

Reduced traffic congestion

associated with growth

Supports National Planning

Policy Framework (NPFF)

objectives of delivering a

sufficient supply of homes

and supporting sustainable

economic growth fit for the

21st century

Supports Mayor’s Transport

Strategy (MTS) Policy 21

and Draft new London Plan

policies GG2, GG4, GG5,

SD1 & T2

Objective B – Orbital transport

connectivity

Enhance orbital public transport

connectivity to and between major trip

attractors in west and north west

London (e.g. town centres and

Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park

Royal, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent

Cross/Cricklewood and the Great West

Corridor) to support mode shift towards

active, efficient and sustainable modes

of transport, and west and north west

London’s continued economic growth

Residents

Journey time benefits to key

destinations; Improved

connectivity to jobs; Reduced

traffic congestion; Improved air

quality; Health benefits

Business

Improved access to

customers/clients; Economic

growth

Supports NPPF objectives

of building a strong,

competitive economy,

ensuring the vitality of town

centres and promoting

sustainable transport

Supports MTS Policies 1 &

14, Draft new London Plan

Policy GG2 and the London

Environment Strategy

Delivers MTS Proposal 88

and supports MTS Proposal

67

Objective C – Public transport

capacity

Enhance public transport capacity in

west and north west London to relieve

pressure on existing corridors and

ensure the resilience of the public

transport network as population grows

Passengers

Crowding benefits; Improved

journey options

Supports NPPF objective of

promoting sustainable

transport

Supports MTS Policy 16


44

2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs

2.4.1.1 As outlined in Section 2.2 above, the current situation (do-nothing option)

would result in continued poor orbital connectivity in west and north west

London as committed schemes are primarily radially focussed. This could

act as a constraint on delivering the homes needed to accommodate the

growing population or the commercial development needed to

accommodate employment growth. It could also lead to detrimental

unintended consequences of growth such as highway congestion on non-

radial links, and increasing pressure on a public transport network that is

already under strain.

2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements

2.5.1.1 When addressing the objectives outlined in Section 2.3, it has been

assumed that any preferred option must be compliant with the Mayor’s

Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets Approach

and the principles of Good Growth while delivering a mode shift to active,

efficient and sustainable modes. It must also support the delivery of LPA

local plans and other policies which have similar objectives.

2.5.1.2 Furthermore, the preferred option must have the potential to deliver on

shared Mayoral/West London LPA objectives by unlocking additional new

homes, over and above those being unlocked by committed schemes.

2.6 Strategic Options

2.6.1 Strategic Options overview

2.6.1.1 The West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints study32,

commissioned by the West London Alliance, identified the costs of

constraints to the sub-regional economy and identified a long-list of 28

potential scheme interventions to address the major infrastructure

constraints across the sub-region under the themes of highway network

enhancements (7 schemes), bus network enhancements (5 schemes), and

rail network enhancements (16 schemes). Each potential intervention was

appraised against five policy criteria (economic impact, orbital connectivity,

growth area connectivity, physical deliverability, value for money) and

whether it was dependent on or complementary to another intervention.

This appraisal was used to prioritise the interventions to provide a short-list

of those that were considered most likely to support the future growth of

the west London sub-region and to be realistically deliverable. Schemes

32 West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints – Outcomes Report (West London Alliance, 2017)


45

were then grouped into packages and prioritised as shown in Table 17

below.

Table 17: West London Transport packages (WLA)

Source: West London Alliance (2017)

2.6.1.2 The appraisal concluded that the package P3 (consisting of re-introducing

passenger services on the Dudding Hill Rail Line, and associated junction

improvements at Neasden and Acton East), was the highest priority.

2.6.1.3 As this appraisal was conducted in a different policy context (the new MTS

was adopted in March 2018), six types of intervention which could help to

address the orbital connectivity, growth and capacity challenges in west

London outlined above have been reconsidered below.

2.6.2 Highway capacity schemes

2.6.2.1 Orbital highway capacity schemes would not deliver mode shift to active,

efficient and sustainable modes in line with the Mayor’s Transport

Strategy. They also scored relatively poorly in the WLA assessment. For

these reasons they are not considered further.


46

2.6.3 Walk/cycle schemes

2.6.3.1 Active travel aligns strongly with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and

compares strongly against other modes for shorter trips. At the London-

wide level for trips of less than 2km there are more walk trips than car-

driver trips and more cycle trips than rail trips33. Addressing the severance

caused by rail lines and the A40 would enable more north-south trips to be

made by walking and cycling in the sub-region.

2.6.3.2 For longer trips, active travel alone is unlikely to be competitive versus the

car. Furthermore, active travel schemes cannot by themselves unlock new

homes at the same scale as public transport schemes, and would not

enhance public transport capacity in the sub-region. Nevertheless, active

travel would still have a supporting role in any public transport intervention,

as all public transport journeys require access and egress to/from the

public transport service. It is assumed that active travel would play that

supporting role in the public transport options considered below.

2.6.4 Enhanced bus priority

2.6.4.1 A combination of bus lanes, bus gates and parking restrictions could

deliver journey time savings for public transport passengers. Existing bus

priority in the area is mostly along radial routes as shown in Figure 23.

2.6.4.2 TfL and WestTrans have investigated enhanced bus priority for the corridor

between Ealing and Brent Cross, which would address some of the

connectivity challenges in the north-eastern part of the sub-region, notably

orbital severance across LB Brent.

2.6.4.3 Light-touch bus priority would be relatively low cost and benefits would be

spread across all bus journeys operating along affected links. Some

highway capacity trade-offs would be required. Journey time and

connectivity benefits arising from individual interventions would be felt over

a relatively small area, with longer journeys still requiring interchange to

existing orbital rail services for part of the journey.

2.6.4.4 At the London-wide level, bus is the most popular mode of public transport

for trips up to 5km, but is overtaken by rail for longer trips34. Key origin-

destination (OD) pairs exceeding this distance within the sub-region

include Brent Cross – Ealing (7.5km) and Brentford (for Great West

Corridor) to Old Oak (6.5km). It is unlikely that bus priority would enable

these OD pairs to be served competitively.

33 LTDS

34 Ibid


47

Figure 23: Bus lanes in west and north west London


Source: TfL, GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary

2.6.4.5 While enhanced bus priority could benefit orbital connectivity at a local

level, it would not by itself unlock new homes and commercial

development and would have a limited impact on public transport capacity

more generally.

2.6.5 Bus transit

2.6.5.1 A combination of more significant interventions on the road network

including reallocation of roadspace to bus passengers and/or repurposing

lightly used rail lines could allow for the development of bus transit,

supported by express (limited stop) purpose designed bus services.

2.6.5.2 Bus transit delivers superior journey time benefits to light-touch bus priority

measures while maintaining the service planning flexibility of the bus.

Additionally, due to the large amounts of segregation along the route, it

also improves reliability.

2.6.5.3 Due to the flexibility of a bus transit service, this public transport

intervention could connect town centres across west London, such as

Ealing, Wembley and Brent. Figure 24 illustrates potential bus transit

corridors between Brent Cross, Wembley, Ealing and Gunnersbury.

The corridor is served by a

dense network of over 70

bus routes in total, many

of which could benefit

from enhanced bus priority

at key pinch points.

Existing bus lanes are

primarily radially focused,

providing limited journey

time benefits for north-

south movements.


48

Highway capacity trade-offs would be required to deliver this, and longer

journeys would require interchange to existing rail services.

2.6.5.4 Bus transit would benefit orbital connectivity, and could help unlock some

new homes and employment capacity by improving public transport

capacity. Although benefits delivered through a transit solution could be

significant, it is likely that they would be lower than those delivered by a rail

option.

Figure 24: Potential bus transit corridors (Brent Cross – Wembley – Ealing – Gunnersbury)



2.6.5.5 The option outlined above would directly connect several town centres and

growth areas in the corridor. Additionally, as the route of the transit has

more flexibility in comparison to a rail option, this route can also serve the

Wembley Opportunity Area directly. A notable weakness of this option is

the failure to connect directly to Old Oak, the single biggest Opportunity

Area in west and north west London, and the resulting network effect of

this emerging strategic interchange. This would limit the potential to spread

connectivity benefits across the wider sub-region. Any direct connection to

Old Oak would increase the length of the route, meaning less direct and

less competitive journey times for other origin-destination pairs.

A bus transit scheme

could link Brent to Ealing

via Wembley, with an

option to extend to

Gunnersbury and Kew to

connect with the North

London Line and

Hounslow Loop.


49

2.6.5.6 TfL has also considered conceptual options for bus transit and related

interventions along the A4 between Chiswick Roundabout and Gillette

Corner. While this would enhance connectivity to the Great West Corridor,

its impact on orbital connectivity would be more limited as interchange to

the North London line would be required at South Acton or Gunnersbury

for longer journeys.

2.6.5.7 A bus transit solution would bring benefits to the area by helping to

improve the reliability and quality of orbital travel in west London, however

due to the quantum of new homes envisaged for the region, bus transit

alone cannot provide sufficient capacity. Bus transit would also offer less

attractive journey times than rail over longer distances in this context.

Nevertheless, the benefits of bus services are recognised and both

improved bus priority and implementation of bus transit could be included

in a wider package of transport improvements.

2.6.6 Light rail

2.6.6.1 Light rail could be introduced using existing lightly used rail freight

alignments such as the Dudding Hill line as shown in Figure 25.

2.6.6.2 This would have an impact on existing freight services. Freight trains can

share track with passenger trams under very limited circumstances, but

there are onerous safety consideration to be addressed, which it may not

be possible to satisfactorily overcome. The MTS emphasises the need for

careful planning to make best use of rail capacity for both passenger and

freight services and the scope of a light rail scheme would need to be

defined to align with this.

2.6.6.3 A tram option would also require either sharing or reallocating street space

to bring services into the heart of town centres and growth areas. If this

cannot be achieved, journeys to Wembley and Ealing would require

interchange at Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. Extending services south

towards the Great West Corridor would encounter similar constraints to co-

running with heavy rail, but on a much busier section of track. This would

deliver orbital connectivity benefits, help to unlock new homes and

enhance public transport capacity, but requires significant delivery

challenges to be overcome.


50

Figure 25: Dudding Hill line



Figure 26: Dudding Hill Junction

The Dudding Hill line,

converted to a tramway,

would form the core of a

tram network linking Brent

Cross, Wembley and Old

Oak/Park Royal.


51

2.6.7 Heavy rail

2.6.7.1 The West London Alliance identified several freight and disused rail lines in

the sub-region that could, theoretically, facilitate alternative passenger

service routes. The Dudding Hill line performed strongest of these in terms

of orbital connectivity and Opportunity Area connectivity as it bridges the

orbital public transport connectivity gap across between LB Ealing and LB

Barnet (across LB Brent), and directly connects the Opportunity Area at

Brent Cross/Cricklewood with Old Oak and points to the south. It is

therefore considered as a central component of the heavy rail option

below.

2.6.7.2 The heavy rail option would involve using existing orbital passenger

corridors (part of the London Overground network), combined with lightly

used freight lines (Dudding Hill line) to create a continuous rail link from the

north eastern part of the sub-region to the south. This would form the West

London Orbital line (WLO), running from the Thameslink corridor in the

Brent Cross/Cricklewood area to the Hounslow Loop, via the Dudding Hill

line and the North London line. This option would use existing

infrastructure and link into the existing London Overground network.

Figure 27: West London Orbital line (as described in MTS 2018)



The West London Orbital

line would run from the

Thameslink corridor in the

Brent Cross/Cricklewood

area to the Hounslow

Loop, via the Dudding Hill

line and the North London

line.


52

Figure 28: Dudding Hill line at Neasden

2.6.7.3 The alignment would directly connect three Opportunity Areas at Brent

Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor.

Connections to Wembley and Ealing would be indirect but journey times

would still be competitive via interchange to high frequency rail services at

Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. The retention of the Dudding Hill line as a

heavy rail line avoids the negative implications for freight associated with

the light rail option while delivering additional journey time benefits over

bus schemes, enabling connectivity benefits to be realised over a wider

area.

2.6.7.4 The WLO scheme has been identified in the MTS as having the potential

to unlock new homes and jobs in west London. It would bring orbital

connectivity benefits across a wide area and would significantly enhance

public transport capacity in the sub-region. The scheme could also be

delivered using existing infrastructure across several sections based on

similar principles to those used in successful development of much of the

Overground network.

2.6.7.5 The scheme would attract significant stakeholder support. LPAs have

already expressed support for the scheme during the consultation on the

Mayor’s Transport Strategy.


53

2.6.8 Underground

2.6.8.1 A north-south London Underground extension between Brent

Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow could cover a similar geographic area to

the heavy rail option, but would be less constrained by existing

infrastructure and therefore could run closer to town centres along the

corridor.

2.6.8.2 A London Underground scheme would enable higher frequencies, and

therefore deliver enhanced capacity and connectivity benefits vis-à-vis the

heavy rail option. However this would require considerably higher capital

spend and raise more physical deliverability challenges than the heavy rail

or bus options.

Figure 29: Indicative corridor for London Underground extension between Brent

Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow



2.6.9 Qualitative assessment

2.6.9.1 Table 18 qualitatively assesses each of the potential schemes against

national, regional and local policy and indicates that most would be in

alignment. Light Rail would only align if the scope included maintaining

freight paths on shared sections of track. Highway capacity schemes

would not align with transport or planning policy.


54

Table 18: Alignment of options with national, regional and local policy

Scheme

intervention

National Planning

Policy Framework

Mayor’s

Transport

Strategy

Draft new London

Plan

Local planning

policy

Heavy rail Supports delivering a

sufficient supply of

homes, building a

strong, competitive

economy, ensuring the

vitality of town centres

and promoting

sustainable transport.

Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift), 16

(rail capacity) &

21 (Good

Growth).

Delivers

proposal 88

(West London

Orbital)

Supports Policy

GG2 (making the

best use of land),

GG4 (delivering the

homes Londoners

need) & T1

(strategic approach

to transport).

Aligns with priorities in

LPA local plans and

OAPFs, including

Principle T1 (rail &

underground) of Old

Oak Park Royal

OAPF.

Underground Supports delivering a


homes, building a

strong, competitive



and promoting


Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift), 16

(rail capacity) &

21 (Good

Growth).

Supports Policy

GG2 (making the

best use of land),

GG4 (delivering the

homes Londoners

need) & T1

(strategic approach

to transport).


local plans and

OAPFs.

Bus transit Supports delivering a


homes, building a

strong, competitive



and promoting


Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift), 15

(transform the

bus network) &

21 (Good

Growth).

Supports Policy

GG2 (making the

best use of land),

GG4 (delivering the

homes Londoners

need) & T1

(strategic approach

to transport).


local plans and

OAPFs, including

Principle T5 (buses) of

Old Oak Park Royal

OAPF (pending final

alignment).

Light rail Supports delivering a


homes, building a

strong, competitive



and promoting


Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift) &

21 (Good

Growth).

Potential

conflict with

Proposal 18

(rail freight).

Supports Policy

GG2 (making the

best use of land),

GG4 (delivering the

homes Londoners

need) & T1

(strategic approach

to transport).


local plans and

OAPFs.

Enhanced bus

priority

Supports building a

strong, competitive



and promoting


Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift), 15

(transform the

bus network) &

21 (Good

Growth).

Supports Policy T1

(strategic approach

to transport).


local plans and

OAPFs, including

Principle T5 (buses) of

Old Oak Park Royal

OAPF.


55

Scheme

intervention

National Planning

Policy Framework

Mayor’s

Transport

Strategy

Draft new London

Plan

Local planning

policy

Walk/cycle

schemes

Supports, ensuring the


and promoting


Aligns with

Policies 1

(mode shift), 2

(walking and

cycling) & 21

(Good Growth).

Supports Policy T1

(strategic approach

to transport) & T5

(cycling).


local plans and

OAPFs, including

Principle T6 (walking

and cycling) of Old

Oak Park Royal

OAPF.

Highway

capacity

schemes

Does not promote


Does not align

with Policy 1

(mode shift).

Not aligned with

Healthy Streets

Approach.

Does not align with

Policy T1 (strategic

approach to

transport).

Aligns with Principle

T2 (roads) of Old Oak

Park Royal OAPF but

does not align with

local plan priorities of

promoting sustainable

travel.

2.6.9.2 Table 19 summarises the policy appraisal above and further appraises

against each of the three schemes, objectives and complexity of

construction and operation.

2.6.9.3 The qualitative assessment is relative. The performance of each option is

considered relative to all other options. Where an option performs strongly

relative to the alternatives, it is marked in green. Where it performs poorly

relative to the alternatives, it is marked in red.

2.6.9.4 Qualitatively assessing each of the potential schemes against the

objectives indicates that heavy rail has the greatest potential. Underground

performs strongly against the objectives but would have very high

complexity of construction and operation. Similarly light rail performs

strongly against the objectives but would be challenging to deliver in a way

that aligns with policy and would have high complexity of construction and

operation. Bus transit could be a lower cost alternative to heavy rail, as it

would deliver moderate benefits against all objectives.


56

Table 19: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of construction and operation

Scheme

intervention

Alignment with

policy

frameworks

Objective A: New homes

and jobs

Objective B: Orbital transport

connectivity

Objective C: Public

transport capacity

Complexity of construction and

operation

Heavy rail (WLO) Yes High

Delivers new connectivity at

high capacity

High

Provides new connection between Old

Oak and Brent Cross

Links Hounslow Loop to North London

line and Old Oak

High

Provides high capacity service

Medium

Uses existing infrastructure

Some junction works required

Shared running with other passenger rail

and freight services

Underground Yes High


high capacity

High

Provides new north-south connection

along the full length of the corridor

Could serve town centres directly

High


Very High

Entirely new infrastructure

Significant tunnelling required

Bus transit Yes Medium


lower capacity than rail

Medium


Oak and Brent Cross, but with slower

journey times than rail

Could serve town centres directly

Medium

Provides medium capacity

service

Less likely than rail to attract

customer from crowded radial

rail routes

Medium

Requires reallocation of road-space

Requires balancing the needs of

pedestrians, cyclists and bus users

Light rail Depends on

scope

Potential conflict

with MTS

Proposal 18

High


high capacity

Medium


Oak and Brent Cross

Potential to improve connectivity south

of Old Oak, depending on route

High


High

Requires trams and trains to share track

Requires reallocation of road-space

Enhanced bus

priority

Yes

Low

Unlikely to deliver new

connectivity and capacity

needed to unlock full housing

potential

Medium

Improves speeds and reliability, but

with slower journey times than rail

Low

Limited scope to provide

additional capacity

Low

Requires reallocation of road-space, but at

a lower level of intervention than bus transit


pedestrian, cyclists and bus users

Walk/cycle

schemes

Yes Low

While walking and cycling has

a role in helping to optimise

densities, it would be unlikely

to do so at the same level as

other options in this context

Low

Does not deliver connectivity for longer

journeys

No

Does not provide new public

transport capacity

Low

Requires reallocation of road-space, but in

most cases this could be at a lower level of

intervention than for bus schemes


pedestrians, cyclists and bus users

Highway

capacity

schemes

No N/A N/A N/A N/A


57

2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO)

2.7.1 WLO scheme options

2.7.1.1 The WLO scheme is a heavy rail scheme consisting of a central core

between South Acton and Neasden, with two branch options at either end,

to Hendon/West Hampstead in the north, and to Hounslow/Kew Bridge in

the south.

2.7.1.2 A ‘core’ 8tph option and a 4tph alternative sensitivity have been fully

appraised in the Economic Case.

Figure 30: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)


2.7.1.3 The core option is a service of 4tph Kew Bridge - Hendon and 4tph

Hounslow – West Hampstead, meaning 8tph through the central core as

shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: WLO core option service pattern


58

2.7.1.4 A second more limited service was also considered, consisting of a 4tph

service Hounslow - Hendon only (Figure 32).

Figure 32: WLO 4tph sensitivity service pattern

2.7.1.5 In addition to the core option and 4tph sensitivity, one alternative 8tph

service pattern ( 4tph Kew Bridge – West Hampstead and 4tph Hounslow

– Hendon), three alternative 4tph combinations (Kew Bridge - Hendon,

Hounslow – West Hampstead, Kew Bridge – West Hampstead), and three

truncated alignments (Hounslow – Brent Cross West, Lionel Road -

Hendon, Brentford - Hendon) were also modelled in Railplan.

2.7.1.6 Two alternative land use scenarios (see 2.7.2), reflecting the development

which could be supported by the WLO, were also modelled.

2.7.1.7 The options considered may be refined further in future business cases.

2.7.2 The WLO scheme could enable the delivery of new homes

The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000

new homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was

applied, while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan.

2.7.2.1 A development capacity study was commissioned to support this Business

Case. This work is an independent study undertaken by a consultant for

TfL to identify potential development and employment that could come

forward as a result of the scheme.

2.7.2.2 In assessing development potential, the study considered locations within

a 1km catchment of a station (corresponding to approximately 10-minute

walk) to reflect potential impacts of the scheme on housing delivery. A

“bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development

potential based on information from the London Strategic Housing and

Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA)35. The study considered sites

that could be delivered from SHLAA Phase 3 onwards (i.e. from 2024).

2.7.2.3 The study sets out three scenarios as shown in Table 20.

35 To help deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is

also being strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a third of growth in the form of small sites development.


59

Table 20: Development Capacity Study scenarios

Scenario 1: “without

scheme”

Scenario 2: WLO-

dependent potential

Scenario 3: Maximum development

uplift

This scenario identifies

the development that

would occur in each

location regardless of

whether the WLO

scheme occurs or not,

assuming sites with

higher degree of

certainty will come

forward.

Sites with ‘approval’ and

those classified as

‘allocated’ and ‘potential

development’ were

considered for this

category.

Sites classified as

‘excluded’, ‘to be

deleted’, ‘unsuitable’ and

‘low probability’ were not

included, as SHLAA

assumes these would

not come forward.

This scenario identifies the

development that could

potentially be unlocked as a

result of the WLO. This

scenario is compliant with the

draft new London Plan and

Local Planning Authorities’

policies.

Sites with ‘approval’ are

assumed to come forward at

the level assumed in the

SHLAA (no additional uplift

from the WLO) as these sites

would come forward prior to

the scheme being delivered.

Sites classified as ‘allocated’

and ‘potential development’

were assumed to benefit from

improved connectivity as a

result of the WLO, and

therefore had a PTAL uplift of

1 applied to intensify

development potential during

the SHLAA timeline of Phase

3 and beyond.

This scenario identifies the additional

development that could be unlocked

as a result of the WLO scheme should

a more flexible approach to planning

be applied. This scenario is still fully

compliant with the draft new London

Plan.

Sites identified in scenario 2 are taken

forward into this scenario. In addition,

new sites are included:

Sites identified as unsuitable in

the SHLAA because they are SIL

or LSIS (assuming no net loss of

employment floorspace, and fully

compliant with GLA standard for

SIL intensification/increase)36

Sites identified as ‘low probability’

because they are social housing

or have challenges relating to

multiple ownerships37

Other sites that have not

previously been identified in the

SHLAA

It should be noted that no Maximum

development scenario sites could

come forward without further

discussions with LPAs and the

Greater London Authority.

2.7.2.4 Under the WLO-dependent scenario, the study identified an additional

8,800 residential units unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area. The

stations with the most WLO-dependent potential identified are

Cricklewood, Neasden, and South Acton. Together, these stations could

bring forward over 6,000 units within a 1km catchment.

36 LB Brent, LB Ealing and OPDC are in the ‘Provide Capacity’ category for industrial floorspace in the

draft new London Plan. This means they are among the boroughs where strategic demand for industrial, logistical and related uses is anticipated to be the strongest. They should seek to deliver intensified floorspace capacity in either existing and/or new locations accessible to the strategic road network and in locations with potential for transport by rail and/or water. This study assumes that this can take place away from the WLO. All other boroughs affected by the WLO are in the ‘Retain Capacity’ category. 37

Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide where applicable


60

2.7.2.5 In the Maximum development scenario, up to an additional 29,000 units

could be unlocked. This could be as a result of LPAs and the Mayor

agreeing to intensify Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the

redevelopment of social housing38.

2.7.2.6 The West London Alliance has previously undertaken a development

capacity study in 2014. This work estimated that the WLO could unlock up

to 20,000 homes. The 2014 study approach was based on assumptions

broadly in line with those for the WLO-dependent scenario plus a number

of SIL sites considered ‘highly likely’ to come forward for mixed use

development, including residential.

2.7.2.7 The findings of these studies do not dictate what will happen on the

ground. The studies are intended to be used as a basis to inform further

planning across each Local Authority. Consultation with all stakeholders,

including local communities, public sector land owners and the Mayor,

would be required to further refine the development potential on a site-

specific basis.

2.7.2.8 In addition to homes directly supported, the scheme could also improve

connectivity to other growth areas further away from the route, such as

Harrow, Southall and Wembley via interchange at Harlesden, Neasden

and Old Oak respectively.

38 Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide

where applicable


61

Table 21: Summary of housing potential by location (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)

Station Scenarios


Total

units

Total

units

Additional units to

baseline

Total

units

Additional units to

baseline

Acton Central 1,434 1,910 476 4,585 3,151

Brent Cross

West

7,798 7,798 0 10,746 2,948

Brentford 1,961 2,290 329 3,207 1,246

Cricklewood 1,518 3,109 1,591 3,474 1,956

Harlesden 1,905 2,020 115 2,020 115

Hendon 1,622 2,154 532 3,131 1,509

Hounslow 3,394 3,739 345 3,739 345

Isleworth 1,322 1,553 231 2,678 1,356

Kew Bridge 1,132 1,132 0 2,791 1,659

Lionel Road 619 619 0 1,310 691

Neasden 2,126 4,253 2,127 8,014 5,888

OOC Victoria

Road 39

18,244 18,244 0 18,244 0

South Acton 2,533 4,917 2,384 6,490 3,957

Syon Lane 616 708 92 3,173 2,557

West Hampstead 1,792 2,374 582 3,667 1,875

Total 48,016 56,819 8,803 77,269 29,253

Source: SNC Lavalin

Table 22: Summary of housing potential by Planning Authority (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)

Local Authority

Scenarios


Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711

Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22

Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609

Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672

Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240

Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489

OPDC40

19,383 19,383 19,383

Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143

Total 48,016 56,819 77,269

Source: SNC Lavalin

39 Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and

public transport schemes 40

Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport schemes


62

2.7.3 The WLO scheme could support employment growth

The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office

and 6,000 industrial jobs.

The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population

able to access growing employment hubs such as Old Oak/Park Royal and

Great West Corridor

2.7.3.1 The development capacity study also considered a high level desktop

assessment of employment workspace potential as a result of the WLO.

The WLO-dependent scenario considers the employment capacity of

allocated, approved and potential development sites. Securing of these

sites’ development for mixed use provides employment capacity of 5,000

retail, nearly 12,000 office and 6,000 industrial jobs.

2.7.2.9 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population

able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park

Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)41 (Table

23).

Table 23: Economically active population able to access each station within 50 minutes

(‘000s)

Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change

Acton Central 1,121 1,338 19.3%

Brent Cross West 718 790 10.1%

Brentford 918 1,167 27.2%

Cricklewood 1,038 1,046 0.8%

Harlesden 1,168 1,176 0.7%

Hendon 922 980 6.2%

Hounslow 505 525 4.0%

Isleworth 546 575 5.2%

Kew Bridge 1,034 1,162 12.4%

Lionel Road 838 1,010 20.4%

Neasden 796 801 0.7%

OOC Victoria Road 1,147 1,294 12.9%

South Acton 1,175 1,246 6.0%

Syon Lane 715 986 37.9%

West Hampstead 2,275 2,283 0.3%

Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 population

2.7.2.10 Furthermore, the WLO would link a number of town centres across West

London, several of which are identified in the draft new London Plan as

strategic regeneration priorities. Improved public transport connections can

41 Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old

Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be served by Brentford and Syon Lane


63

play an important role in maintaining town centre viability. Previous

analysis by GLA Economics has demonstrated evidence of a strong

relationship between employment and population density in areas of low

public transport accessibility, concluding that “there is reasonable evidence

to suggest that land turned over for housing in areas of low transport

accessibility could be associated with employment growth in the local

economy”42. The results of the study suggest that increasing the resident

population of an area by 1,000 could potentially, on average, lead to 171

additional jobs in the local area.

2.7.4 The WLO scheme would address orbital connectivity barriers and improve journey times across west and north west London

The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and

Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas

The WLO would provide a new direct link between residential areas, town

centres and employment clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park

Royal Opportunity Area, significantly increasing the number of jobs within a

reasonable public transport travel time from stations along the Hounslow

Loop line

The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public

transport journeys across west and north west London and beyond by linking

eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic interchange

2.7.4.1 The WLO scheme would bridge the public transport connectivity gap

between north and west London. The route would provide a direct link

between Old Oak/Park Royal and the Brent Cross/Cricklewood area, with

journey times of 12-15 minutes, compared to journey times of at least 23 -

35 minutes at present43. The service would provide a reliable alternative to

travelling by car on the congested road network in the area.

2.7.4.2 The WLO scheme would provide a direct service for customers wishing to

travel between stations served by the Hounslow Loop line and those

served by the North London line, allowing customers originating in

Hounslow and Brentford to access Acton and Old Oak without needing to

back-track or use parallel bus routes to complete their journeys.

42 More residents, more jobs? 2015 update: The relationship between population, employment and

accessibility in London, GLA Economics, 2015 43

WLO operating times between Old Oak Victoria Road and Cricklewood are estimated to be 12.5 minutes (Source: TfL/WSP). Current journey times are approximately 23 – 35 minutes in the inter peak (Source: TfL Journey Planner. The lower end of the range relates to journeys from Willesden Junction to Cricklewood via London Overground and Thameslink. The upper end of the range relates to journeys from Victoria Road to Cricklewood via bus route 266).


64

Interchange at Kew Bridge would enable easier journeys from Old Oak and

areas to the north to Chiswick and Barnes.

2.7.4.3 The effect of this would be an increase in the number of jobs accessible

within 50 minutes of stations south/south west of Old Oak in particular, with

some seeing an increase of up to 76 per cent (Table 24)

Table 24: Jobs accessible from each station within 50 minutes (‘000s)

Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change

Acton Central 2,260 3,213 42.2%

Brent Cross West 1,694 1,796 6.0%

Brentford 1,271 1,985 56.2%

Cricklewood 2,841 2,850 0.3%

Harlesden 2,638 2,660 0.8%

Hendon 2,153 2,251 4.6%

Hounslow 537 592 10.3%

Isleworth 588 654 11.2%

Kew Bridge 1,941 2,188 12.7%

Lionel Road 1,406 1,907 35.7%

Neasden 2,198 2,199 0.0%

OOC Victoria Road 2,854 3,147 10.3%

South Acton 2,585 2,923 13.1%

Syon Lane 1,041 1,835 76.2%

West Hampstead 4,012 4,030 0.5%

Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 employment

2.7.4.4 The WLO scheme also supports the development of Old Oak as a

strategic interchange for west and north west London. The MTS identifies

strategic interchanges as having the potential to provide multiple high-

frequency radial services to central London, high quality orbital services

that connect to other parts of London and high frequency local bus

services. A mature strategic interchange at Old Oak would make public

transport a competitive alternative to the car for journeys across the sub-

region, and between the sub-region and neighbouring sub-regions, without

the need to travel via central London.


65

Figure 33: Strategic interchanges


2.7.4.5 By addressing orbital connectivity barriers, and supporting the

development of a strategic interchange, the WLO could deliver journey

time benefits for both orbital and radial trips.

2.7.4.6 The WLO scheme would link a corridor stretching from Hounslow to

Hendon to the new Elizabeth Line station at Old Oak Common, enabling

more direct one-stop connections to Heathrow, the West End, the City and

Canary Wharf. This could yield journey time benefits for trips from parts of

LB Hounslow to destinations in the West End, and from LB Brent towards

Heathrow (via the Elizabeth line).

Table 25: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to West End using Elizabeth line interchange)

OD Pair Route

without

WLO

Journey

time

without

WLO

Number

of

changes

Route with

WLO

Journey

time with

WLO

Number

of

changes

Journey

time

saving

Hounslow to

Tottenham

Court Road

Hounslow –

Waterloo –

Tottenham

Court Road

62 mins 1 Hounslow –

Old Oak –

Tottenham

Court Road

50 mins 1 12 mins

Neasden to

Heathrow

(via Elizabeth

line)44

Neasden –

Bond Street –

Heathrow

70 mins 1 Neasden –

Old Oak –

Heathrow

45 mins 1 25 mins

44 Assumes customer uses Elizabeth line rather than premium Heathrow Express service


66

2.7.4.7 By providing a direct link from LB Hounslow into this strategic interchange,

the WLO scheme would enable north-south trips to be made within the

sub-region with one interchange, avoiding the need to travel via central

London. At present, to travel from Hounslow, Isleworth or Brentford to

Wembley or Harrow would require multiple changes, including at least one

additional bus stage in many cases. This makes the public transport option

unappealing, meaning the trip would either be made by car or not at all. By

feeding the strategic interchange at Old Oak, the WLO would enable

multiple new one-stop origin-destination pairs by public transport within the

sub-region, with competitive journey times.

Table 26: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to Wembley with fewer interchanges)

OD Pair Route without

WLO

Journey

time

without

WLO

Number

of

changes

Route

with WLO

Journey

time with

WLO

Number

of

changes

Journey

time

saving

Hounslow

to

Wembley

Central

Hounslow –

Gunnersbury

(bus) – Willesden

Junction –

Wembley Central


Harlesden –

Wembley

Central

47 mins 1 17 mins

Hounslow –

Richmond –

Willesden

Junction –

Wembley Central


Harlesden –

Wembley

Central

47 mins 1 20 mins

2.7.4.8 The Dudding Hill line links LB Barnet and the Thameslink corridor to this

part of west London. A new passenger service would enable trips from the

north sub-region to town centres in west London, such as Wembley,

Ealing, Acton, Brentford and Hounslow, to be made by public transport via

Old Oak, without the need to back-track or travel via central London. This

would also provide additional connectivity from outer north London and

towns on the edge of London such as Borehamwood and St. Albans to

HS2 and Heathrow airport (via the Elizabeth line).

Table 27: Journey time comparison (Thameslink corridor to west London, avoiding Zone 1)

OD Pair Route

without WLO

Journey

time

without

WLO

Number

of

changes

Route with

WLO

Journey

time with

WLO

Number

of

changes

Journey

time

saving

Brent Cross

West to

Ealing

Broadway

Brent Cross

West – West

Hampstead-

Bond Street –

Ealing

Broadway

55 mins 2 Brent Cross

West – Old

Oak – Ealing

Broadway

31 mins 1 24 mins

St. Albans

to Heathrow

(via

Elizabeth

line)

St. Albans –

Farringdon –

Heathrow

86 mins 1 St. Albans –

Brent Cross

West – Old

Oak –

Heathrow

77 mins 2 9 mins


67

Figure 34: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)

Richmond

Willesden

Junction

Ealing

Broadway

West

Hampstead

Harlesden

Cricklewood

Greenford

to Stratford


to Heathrow, Slough

and Reading

to Feltham

and Staines

Hendon

Neasden

Brent Cross

West

Hounslow Kew

Bridge

Old Oak

to Clapham

Junction and

Waterloo

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West

Midlands and beyond

Richmond

Willesden

Junction

Hounslow

Ealing

Broadway

West

Hampstead

Hendon

Harlesden

Neasden

Cricklewood

Brent Cross

West

Greenford

to Clapham

Junction and

Waterloo

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to the West End,

City and Canary

Wharf

to Stratford

Kew

Bridge


to Heathrow, Slough

and Reading

Old Oak

Key

London Underground

Other Rail

Bakerloo

Central

District

Jubilee

Metropolitan

Piccadilly

London Overground

Elizabeth line

Thameslink

Great Western Railway

South Western Railway

London Northwestern Railway

High Speed 2

West London Orbital

to the West

Midlands and beyond

to Feltham

and Staines

New interchanges

enabling journeys

between Thameslink,

Jubilee and Bakerloo/

Watford DC corridors

and destinations to the

south, without needing

to travel via central

London

New direct link

between

Hounslow Loop

and Old Oak,

enabling journeys

between Surrey

and Old Oak/Park

Royal.


68

2.7.5 The WLO scheme could help address congestion and capacity challenges in west and north west London

The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing

congestion along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west

London

The WLO could alleviate crowding on the busy rail and Tube lines

2.7.5.1 The journey time savings outlined above would make public transport more

competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west

London. Alongside a wide array of ongoing measures (including active

travel schemes and continued development of the bus network), this would

support mode shift from the car to active, efficient and sustainable modes,

which would help to reduce congestion and related disbenefits (e.g. poor

air quality.

2.7.5.2 By providing competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO

could also help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections

of the transport network, including the Piccadilly line.

2.7.6 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with London and local policy

2.7.6.1 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with both London wide policy (as

outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, draft new London Plan and

other Mayoral documents), and local policy (as outlined in local plans,

OAPFs and sub-regional visions).

Table 28: Policy alignment of WLO scheme

Strategy/ Policy

Document

Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports

these objectives

National

Planning Policy

Framework

(February 2019)

Sets out aims of delivering a sufficient supply

of homes, building a strong, competitive

economy, ensuring the vitality of town

centres, promoting healthy and safe

communities, promoting sustainable

transport, supporting high quality

communications, making effective use of

land, achieving well-designed places,

protecting Green Belt land, meeting the

challenge of climate change, flooding and

coastal change, conserving and enhancing

the natural environment, conserving and

enhancing the historic environment, and

facilitating the sustainable use of minerals

The WLO scheme delivers a

new sustainable transport

option. The new capacity and

connectivity this brings would

support the delivery of new

homes, a strong competitive

economy and successful town

centres.


69

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

Connecting

people: A

strategic vision

for rail (2017)

Sets out vision for:

A more reliable railway

An expanded network

A better deal for passengers

A modern workforce

A productive and innovative sector

The WLO scheme expands

the passenger rail network in

west London and delivers

improved connectivity for

passengers.

Mayor’s

Transport

Strategy (2018)

Proposal 88: The Mayor, through TfL, the

West London Alliance boroughs and Network

Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new

London Overground ‘West London Orbital’

line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood

and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent

Cross

Policy 1: The Mayor, through TfL and the

boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will

reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in

favour of active, efficient and sustainable

modes of travel, with the central aim for 80

per cent of all trips in London to be made on

foot, by cycle or using public transport by

2041.

Proposal 67: The Mayor, through TfL, will

work to encourage the development and

integration of inner and outer London rail

services and multi-modal interchange hubs to

create ‘mini-radial’ public transport links to

town centres and to provide improved ‘orbital’

public transport connectivity.

Policy 21: The Mayor through TfL and the

boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will

ensure that new homes and jobs in London

are delivered in line with the transport

principles of Good Growth for current and

future Londoners by using transport to:

a) Create high density, mixed-use place,

and

b) Unlock growth potential in

underdeveloped parts of the city

The WLO scheme is a

proposal in its own right in the

MTS (Proposal 88).

The WLO scheme improves

public transport connectivity in

west London, enabling more

trips to be made by active,

efficient and sustainable

modes.

The WLO scheme supports

the emerging strategic

interchange at Old Oak,

providing orbital interchange

with radial services to central

London, orbital services to

other parts and high-

frequency local bus services.

The WLO scheme could

unlock 8,800 new homes

along its route in line with

Good Growth.


70

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

Draft new

London Plan

(2017)

At Examination

in Public Stage

Policy GG2: To create high-density, mixed-use places that make the best use of land, those involved in planning and development must: A. Prioritise the development of Opportunity

Areas, brownfield land, surplus public sector land, sites which are well-connected by existing or planned Tube and rail stations, sites within and on the edge of town centres, and small sites.

B. Proactively explore the potential to intensify the use of land, including public land, to support additional homes and workspaces, promoting higher density development, particularly on sites that are well-connected by public transport, walking and cycling, applying a design–led approach.

C. Understand what is valued about existing places and use this as a catalyst for growth and place-making, strengthening London’s distinct and varied character.

D. Protect London’s open spaces, including the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, designated nature conservation sites and local spaces, and promote the creation of new green infrastructure and urban greening.

E. Plan for good local walking, cycling and public transport connections to support a strategic target of 80 per cent of all journeys using sustainable travel, enabling car-free lifestyles that allow an efficient use of land, as well as using new and enhanced public transport links to unlock growth.

F. Maximise opportunities to use infrastructure assets for more than one purpose, to make the best use of land and support efficient maintenance.

Policy GG4: To create a housing market that works better for all Londoners, those involved in planning and development must: A. Ensure that more homes are delivered. B. Support the delivery of the strategic target of

50 per cent of all new homes being genuinely affordable.

C. Create mixed and inclusive communities, with good quality homes that meet high standards of design and provide for identified needs, including for specialist housing.

D. Identify and allocate a range of site, including small sites, to deliver housing locally, supporting skilled preceision-manufacturing that can increase the rate of building, and planning for all necessary supporting infrastructure from the outset.

E. Establish ambitious and achievable build-out rates at the planning stage, incentivising build-out milestones to helo ensure that homes are built quickly and to reduce the likelihood of permissions being sought to sell land on at a higher value.

The WLO scheme is

highlighted in the Key

Diagram specifying the Plan’s

spatial vision for London.

The WLO scheme provides a

direct link between

Opportunity Areas in Old

Oak/Park Royal, Brent Cross

and the Great West Corridor

and links each of these to the

wider public transport

network.




Good Growth.


71

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

Draft new

London Plan

(2017)

At Examination

in Public Stage

(continued)

Policy GG5: To conserve and enhance London’s global economic competitiveness and ensure that economic success is shared amongst all Londoners, those involved in planning and development must: A. Promote the strength and potential of the

wider city region. B. Seek to ensure that London’s economy

diversifies and that the benefits of economic success are shared more equitably across London.

C. Plan for sufficient employment and industrial space in the right locations to support economic development and regeneration.

D. Ensure that sufficient high-quality and affordable housing, as well as physical and social infrastructure is provided to support London’s growth.

E. Ensure that London continues to provide leadership in innovation, research, policy and ideas, supporting its role as an international incubator and centre for learning.

F. Promote and support London’s rich heritage and cultural assets, and its role as a 24-hour city.

G. Maximise London’s existing and future public transport, walking and cycling network, as well as its network of town centres, to support agglomeration and economic activity.

The WLO could support local

economies by connecting

town centres and Opportunity

Areas across the sub-region.

The WLO provides

connectivity to Strategic

Industrial Locations,

supporting intensification at

these well-used and valuable

sites.

London

Housing

Strategy (2018)

Policy 3.2: Investment to support the delivery

of homes and enabling infrastructure should

be increased and better-targeted to unlock

development.




Good Growth.

London

Environment

Strategy (2018)

Proposal 4.2.2c: The Mayor will work with

government and other partners to seek

reductions in emissions from rail transport

and at stations.

While the Dudding Hill line is

currently diesel-only, there is

a medium-term aspiration to

electrify this line.

Improved public transport

connectivity would promote

mode shift in west and north

west London, bringing air

quality benefits.

Mayor’s

Culture

Strategy (2018)

Commits the Mayor to working with the OPDC

to create a new cultural quarter around the

planned Old Oak Common station.

Identifies the link between transport

investment and supporting London’s creative

economy.

The WLO delivers enhanced

connectivity at Old Oak.

Mayor’s

Economic

Development

Strategy for

London (2017)

Identifies the action to use new transport

schemes to unlock homes and jobs across

London, with developments planned around

walking and cycling for local trips and public

transport use for longer journeys




Good Growth and could also

support new jobs.


72

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

Mayor’s Health

Inequalities

Strategy (2018)

Highlights the link between the Healthy

Streets Approach to transport planning,

including enhancements to the public

transport network, and health outcomes.

The WLO scheme aligns with

the Healthy Streets Approach

by providing enhanced public

transport connectivity.

Old Oak & Park

Royal OAPF

(2015) 45

Principle T1: Proposals should:

a. Deliver a state of the art rail station at Old

Oak Common, providing interchange between

HS2, Crossrail 1 and the Great Western Main

Line;

b. Provide new London Overground station(s)

and supporting infrastructure;

c. Provide substantial capacity improvements

to existing London Underground and

Overground stations, particularly Willesden

Junction and North Acton, and potentially

stations in the wider area;

d. Ensure that the impact on existing rail

infrastructure is minimised during

construction; and

e. Seek to embed existing and future

technology to inform station design to

maximise integration with the wider area.


new London Overground

station at Old Oak Common

Victoria Road and enhances

the overall connectivity of the

area.

OPDC Local

Plan (2018)46

With Planning

Inspectorate

Policy P7: Proposals should plan positively to

deliver the place vision by contributing and /

or delivering where appropriate and relevant

as follows:

m) Safeguarding land for the delivery of the

West London Orbital Line station and services

within Acton Wells

Policy P7C2: Proposals should plan positively

to deliver the cluster vision by contributing

and / or delivering where appropriate and

relevant as follows:

d) Supporting the delivery of Old Oak Common Lane London Overground Station to enhance public transport access and as an integral part of the built environment by providing: ground floor entrances onto the station squares; 24 hour ungated walking and cycling east west access routes; and step-free access.

These policies would support

the delivery of the WLO

scheme

45 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/oapf_for_web.pdf

46 https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/kd1_opdc_local_plan_and_appendix2018.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/oapf_for_web.pdf


73

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

WLA West

London’s

Vision for

Growth 47

The West London Vision for Growth is to be a

thriving and prosperous part of a premier

world city, with highly profitable businesses

investing in West London, successful

residents and resilient communities.

The Vision outlines six key objectives:

•To achieve a step change in partnership with

business and industry to facilitate sustainable

economic growth

•To increase small business start-up and

survival rates through business support hubs,

higher exports and focused collaboration with

higher education institutions

•To remove the skills gap and support low-

paid residents in work to enable them to

achieve pay levels that can sustain and

improve their living arrangements

•To radically improve success rates for

employment programmes for residents with

all young people in education, employment or

training

•To deliver at least 74,000 homes as part of a

housing programme that meets the needs of

our residents and supports growth

•To create and maintain thriving town centres

which are hubs for work and living

The WLO scheme supports

economic growth and town

centres by improving

connectivity through west

London.


unlock 8,800 new homes,

supporting the objective of

delivering 74,000 homes

across the wider region.

West London

Sub-Regional

Transport

Plan48

Sets out West London-specific challenges:

Enhance east-west capacity and manage

congestion

Improve north-south public transport

connectivity

Improve access to, from and within key

locations

Improve land-based air quality

Enhance the efficiency of freight

movement

The WLO scheme directly

addresses north-south public

transport connectivity and

improves access to, from and

within Opportunity Areas at

Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old

Oak/Park Royal and the Great

West Corridor.

The scheme would

complement schemes aimed

at enhancing east-west

capacity, managing

congestion and improving air

quality, and would be

designed in a way that ensure

rail freight can be moved

efficiently.

47 http://app.thco.co.uk/wla/wlanew.nsf/pages/WLA-307

48 http://content.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-sub-regional-transport-plans-2016.pdf


74

Strategy/ Policy

Document


these objectives

LB Barnet Core

Strategy49

Policy CS2 identifies Brent Cross-

Cricklewood as a major focus for the creation

of new jobs and homes (5,510 new homes by

2026)

Policy CS9 identifies the delivery of high

quality transport systems in regeneration

areas as a priority

The WLO scheme serves

regeneration areas around

Brent Cross, Cricklewood and

Hendon.

LB Brent Core

Strategy50

To be

superseded by

Draft Local

Plan (below)

Policy CP 14 states that the council will

promote improvements to orbital public

transport routes which link the strategic

centres in North West London and the Growth

Areas.


northeast-southwest orbital

link across the borough,

linking to the Old Oak Park

Royal OA in the south.

LB Brent Draft

Local Plan51

Post-

consultation

stage

Policy BT1 (sustainable travel choice) of the

draft new local plan52

notes that if the WLO is

not taken forward, orbital travel will continue

to be dependent on the car and bus network,

that these options are less reliable due to

road congestion, and that this would have

detrimental economic and social impacts. The

latest consultation stage for this document

closed in January 2019.

The WLO would enhance

delivery of substantial new

housing and employment

Growth Areas identified at

Staples Corner and Neasden

and improve local connectivity

and opportunities for walking

and cycling in the areas

concerned.

LB Ealing Core

Strategy53

Policy 4.4: Promote North-South Links

(a) To seek improvements to the North

London Line / London Overground stations

and services in the borough.

The WLO scheme enhances

services along the North

London Line corridor.

LB Hounslow

Core Strategy54

Policy EC1 seeks to promote the

development of the proposed rail connection

from Hounslow station to Willesden Junction

via Old Oak Common, with services calling at

Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford.


Hounslow-Old Oak link.

Great West

Corridor Local

Plan Review55

Outlines the need for sustainable transport

options need to be improved throughout the

area to provide attractive alternatives to the

private car and reduce car dependency,

including Lionel Road station on a Hounslow-

Old Oak link


Hounslow-Old Oak link and

could include a station at

Lionel Road.

49 https://www.barnet.gov.uk/dam/jcr:48a8da3d-2998-4c19-b33f-3bd690637878/Local%20Plan%20-

%20Core%20Strategy%20DPD%20(September%202012).pdf 50

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf 51

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411928/brent-preferred-options-local-plan-nov-2018.pdf 52

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411861/draft-local-plan-transport.pdf 53

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3559/adopted_development_strategy_3_april_2012.pdf 54

https://hounslow.box.com/shared/static/i1jpu00afbftgbd1fdubkl6z0ivgdugo.pdf

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/dam/jcr:48a8da3d-2998-4c19-b33f-3bd690637878/Local%20Plan%20-%20Core%20Strategy%20DPD%20(September%202012).pdf

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/dam/jcr:48a8da3d-2998-4c19-b33f-3bd690637878/Local%20Plan%20-%20Core%20Strategy%20DPD%20(September%202012).pdf

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3559/adopted_development_strategy_3_april_2012.pdf

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3559/adopted_development_strategy_3_april_2012.pdf

https://hounslow.box.com/shared/static/i1jpu00afbftgbd1fdubkl6z0ivgdugo.pdf


75

2.7.7 Technical Assessment

2.7.7.1 A high level technical assessment of work previously completed by the

WLA has been conducted on issues such as engineering complexity,

constructability and identification of key dependencies and risks. Some key

considerations of this high level assessment for key elements of the WLO

scheme are presented in Table 29. This does not constitute a full feasibility

assessment for each infrastructure work identified and although no

‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, confirmation of technical

feasibility would only be provided on the completion of a full GRIP 2

assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.

Table 29: High level technical assessment key considerations

New stations at Neasden

and Harlesden

Assumed to be based on ‘standard’ London Overground

station construction. London Overground Station Design Idiom

to be used

Initial identification of required facilities undertaken

Pedestrian modelling needed to determine correct capacity

provision

Detailed land assessment required both for construction and

final state

Brent Cross West Station Assumed that the scheme would integrate with the new

station. The design of the new station would need to ensure

there is provision for WLO to be provided at a later date

Acton Wells Junction Bridge works associated with four tracking identified as

particularly challenging within the geographical context

Access for construction works highlighted as problematic, both

in terms of obtaining railway possession access and non-rail

land availability for works site

Re-signalling of Dudding

Hill Line

A number of different signalling control boundaries exist in the

area which would make finding the right signalling solution and

control arrangements more challenging to get route approval

Kew Bridge or Lionel Road

turnback

Existing track alignment at this location would make providing

a compliant turnback facility challenging. This would be further

complicated by platform provision if part of a new Lionel Road

station

Level crossing works Potential interface with Network Rail National Level Crossing

Programme

Requirement to use existing Network Rail risk assessment

procedure to assess need to close level crossing

Electrification/Traction

power

Confirmation of status of any electrification requirement for

Kew – Acton and Dudding Hill Line sections required.

Traction power modelling required to be undertaken for

electrified sections of the route to determine any additional

supply required to accommodate new service

55 https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20167/local_plan/1104/great_west_corridor_local_plan_review/1

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20167/local_plan/1104/great_west_corridor_local_plan_review/1


76

2.7.7.2 A high level review of existing cost estimate work has also been

undertaken. The outputs of this work have informed the Economic Case

and Financial Case.

2.7.8 Operational Assessment

2.7.8.1 A high level operational assessment has been undertaken56. This assumes

current timetable planning rules continue to apply, London Overground

services as per May 2018 timetable change and freight services as per

May 2018 WTT, and an 8tph WLO service pattern. This does not constitute

a full timetable study which would need to be conducted to determine full

operational feasibility of the proposed WLO service.

2.7.8.2 The reversing siding/bay platforms proposed at Hounslow, Kew Bridge,

West Hampstead and Hendon should be able to accommodate a

maximum of 6 trains per hour. Therefore the proposed train reversing

facility at terminus stations would be sufficient to meet the operational

requirements of 4tph turnaround operations at each terminus.

2.7.8.3 The route between South Acton and Acton Wells Junction would need to

be shared by London Overground North London Line services, freight

trains and the proposed WLO service. Based on the planning rules it would

provide a maximum capacity of 15tph, which is more than the total number

of passenger train paths required, and would give 2-3 paths that could be

allocated to freight services. This route section would be able to meet

current freight demand, but there would be limited spare capacity to cope

with future freight demand growth.

2.7.8.4 The proposed modified track layout at Acton Wells Junction, which

segregates freight and passenger movements, would help reduce

timetabling conflicts. However, the modified junction would be much bigger

than the existing junction and it would be more likely that trains would need

to clear the whole junction crossing, increasing the time required for this in

the Timetable Planning rules. This would need to be assessed again once

a signalling scheme for the new junction is developed.

2.7.8.5 Due to the more fluid nature of freight operations and the timetable

structure for existing passenger services, a full timetable study should be

conducted to determine full operational feasibility of the proposed WLO

service57. This would need to cover the full proposed route following

56 This assessment focuses on areas where London Overground currently runs (the central core of the

WLO alignment between South Acton and Old Oak). 57

A 2017 Network Rail timetable study concluded that a 4tph peak service between Hounslow and Old Oak was possible, but would carry some performance risk


77

agreement of infrastructure and operational assumptions with Network Rail

as part of a full GRIP 2 assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.

2.8 Constraints and Dependencies

2.8.1 Overview

2.8.1.1 The scheme would be developed in collaboration with Network Rail, the

owner and provider of Britain’s National Rail infrastructure. As the entire

proposed WLO route is on Network Rail infrastructure, all technical and

operational approvals for the scheme would be through them. This section

considers key operational and planning constraints and dependencies as

identified by Network Rail based on the initial work to date, as well as other

policy constraints flowing from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, London

Plan, LPA local plans and other policies/strategies.

2.8.2 Stations and capacity

2.8.2.1 Network Rail has expressed concern over the ability of stations between

Hounslow and Kew Bridge to accommodate increased passenger services.

In the next stage business case development, capacity at existing stations

would be tested to determine if capacity interventions are required to

accommodate additional users driven by the new WLO service. Any new

stations proposed on the line of route would be designed to accommodate

expected future demand of the WLO service.

2.8.2.2 At Old Oak Common, it is recognised that assumptions would need to be

made as to whether passengers would be interchanging to other services

(e.g. GWR to Reading) or travelling to Old Oak itself. Previous modelling

has suggested that the scheme would cause significant changes to

demand at Old Oak Common station (representing an approximate

additional 10 per cent demand for the HS2/GWML station) that may drive

additional scope.

2.8.2.3 The impact on Elizabeth Line train loading also requires consideration.

2.8.3 Construction

2.8.3.1 There are likely to be considerable disruptive works for construction, partly

due to crossing busy junctions such as Acton Wells. Construction on HS2

and the GWML may happen at the same time, requiring careful planning

and integration between a number of major rail works.

2.8.4 Service trade-offs

2.8.4.1 The frequency of service on the Hounslow to Kew Bridge route would limit

the potential for more services to London Waterloo that could be available.

These services could be more valuable. We would continue to work with


78

Network Rail Long Term Planning in the next stage of business case

development to understand the scheme in the context of wider long-term

aspirations.

2.8.5 Rail freight

2.8.5.1 The WLO scheme would need to be developed in a way that aligns with

the MTS, ensuring that the shared network is planned to make the best

use of rail capacity for both passenger and freight services.

2.8.5.2 Future growth in rail freight is expected. Network Rail estimates a 50 per

cent increase in demand over the next 25 years. The potential for a W10

diversionary route (from Southampton to the West Midlands) via Kew

would impact on paths between Kew and Acton Canal Wharf. The WLO

scheme would need to be aligned to the key recommendations of the

Network Rail Freight Network Study58 and full consultation with freight

operators would be required through the formal Network Change process.

2.8.5.3 The Dudding Hill line and North London line are both important routes for

rail freight in London. The different acceleration and speeds of passenger

and freight trains would impact on the available capacity for both services

on shared parts of the network.

2.8.6 Rail emissions

2.8.6.1 The Dudding Hill line is not currently electrified. The MTS states that by

2050 all trains should be hauled by zero emission motive-power within

London. In the short-term, electrification of the route would be capital-

intensive with limited benefits given the volume of trains expected to use

the route. The core scheme considered in this Business Case assumes the

use of diesel trains. As such, the appraisal of the environmental impacts of

the scheme can therefore be considered to be pessimistic in the core

scheme (see Section 3).

2.8.6.2 London Overground would have no diesel fleet by the start of the WLO

service with the remaining diesel fleet on the Gospel Oak to Barking (GOB)

route being phased out in 2019 and replaced with a fully electric fleet. TfL

would also no longer have access to facilities for diesel trains within

Willesden Train Maintenance Depot (TMD) as these are being replaced for

the new electric fleet on the GOB line and therefore new maintenance and

stabling facilities for diesel trains would be required by the project.

58 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Freight-Network-Study-April-2017.pdf


79

2.8.6.3 Potential mitigation could include developing options for the provision of

battery-powered trains for this section of route. This technology is already

in use on some railways in Japan, and trials are planned on the Austrian

rail network in 2019. A number of approvals would be required to be

granted by the infrastructure owner Network Rail to allow for battery-

powered train technology to be used on the proposed WLO route.

2.8.6.4 In the longer-term full electrification could be pursued. Future iterations of

this Business Case should seek to utilise the already identified strategy for

electrification of rail freight and previous early feasibility work that Network

Rail has carried out on this route.

2.8.7 Planning policy

2.8.7.1 The scale of housing, employment and other development benefits that

could be attributed to the WLO scheme is dependent on the evolution of

planning policy. A masterplan-led approach to enable intensification and

co-location of housing and employment could enable significantly higher

housing volumes to be delivered while remaining consistent with the draft

new London Plan, particularly at stations along the northern end of the

route.

2.8.7.2 All the local planning authorities along the proposed route have been

engaged in preparation of this document and have contributed to the

development capacity study that has informed it. They are also ensuring

that the WLO is supported in their local plans.

2.8.8 Old Oak Common stations

2.8.8.1 The continued development of Old Oak as a strategic interchange is key to

realising many of the connectivity benefits of the WLO scheme. It is

therefore important that the Old Oak Common stations scheme continues

to progress, particularly the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station and

that it is developed in a way that supports the delivery of the WLO.


80

3 Economic Case

3.1 Description

3.1.1.1 The role of the Economic Case is to determine whether the West London

Orbital (WLO) scheme would be beneficial to the UK economy relative to

its costs. Measures used to express the economic case for each assessed

option include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit to Cost Ratio

(BCR).

3.2 Option selection

3.2.1.1 Two service patterns for the preferred heavy rail option are considered

within this economic case:

8tph core option; 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph Kew

Bridge – Hendon

4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon

3.2.1.2 All options assume that the route is not fully electrified and the assessment

therefore assumes operation is by diesel trains. Costs and benefits have

been modelled assuming operation by 4-car class 172 rolling stock, and

assume operation commences in 2026.

3.2.1.3 In addition to the two service patterns variants above, two alternative land

use scenarios have been modelled, using the outputs of the Development

Capacity Study outlined in Section 2.7.2. These are:

A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an

additional 8,800 homes)

A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional

29,300 homes)

3.2.1.4 Whilst these do not represent different options, they help to build

understanding of the potential outcomes and benefits of the scheme

through multiple modelled scenarios.

3.2.1.5 The remainder of this section considers the costs, revenue and benefits

associated with these options and scenarios, using additional sensitivity

tests where relevant to highlight the impact associated with different

uncertainties and modelling methodologies.

3.2.1.6 A key analytical challenge and uncertainty is the extent to which the

development scenarios represent new homes that are induced investment

(i.e. fully dependent on WLO). This should be investigated further at the

next stage of business case development. For the purpose of this analysis,


81

the scenarios assume fixed land-use i.e. the additional development is

included both with and without WLO.

3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues

3.3.1 Capital Costs

3.3.1.1 Table 29 summarises the capital costs are included in the economic

appraisal and are taken from the study undertaken in October 2017 by

WSP for the West London Alliance59. Costs for Lionel Road station were

estimated based on WSP work conducted separately for LB Hounslow60.

Table 30: Breakdown of Capital Costs, £m (assumed 2017 prices)

Cost item Cost

West Hampstead 2 new platforms 1

Cricklewood 2 new platforms 5.5

Hendon 2 new platforms 1

Brent Cross West station works 5

Neasden new station 6

Harlesden new station 6

OO Victoria road new platforms 6

Re-signalling of Dudding Hill line and Acton - Kew

8

Quadrupling of Acton Wells Junction area 45

Bollo Lane level crossing placement 30

Acton level crossing 5

Kew Bridge or Lionel Road turnback 4

Old Kew Junction doubling 4.6

Old Kew Junction flyover 8.5

Hounslow bay platform 5.4

Depot facilities 5

Lionel Road new station* 6

Sub-total 152

Risk and Contingency (@ 80% of above total) 121

Total 273

*cost not supplied within WSP report.

3.3.1.2 This cost is assumed to occur evenly over the 3-year period from 2023 to

2025.

3.3.1.3 The inclusion of risk and contingency at 80 per cent has been included in

recognition of the early design stage of the scheme.

59 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017)

60 Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014)


82

3.3.1.4 No additional cost is included for renewals, but provision for infrastructure

maintenance and renewals is at least part covered by the Fixed Track

Access Charge (FTAC) included within operating costs.

3.3.1.5 Inclusion of optimism bias, deflation to 2010 prices, a market price

adjustment, and discounting generates a total cost of £179m over 60 years

in 2010 prices and values.

3.3.1.6 We have also considered a further cost sensitivity where capital costs have

been further increased by £100m to account for possible additional costs

accruing to the scheme through additional scope.

3.3.2 Operating Costs

3.3.2.1 Table 31 outlines operating costs for the 8tph and 4tph service pattern

options.

Table 31: Breakdown of annual operating Costs, £m (2018 prices)

Cost item 8tph 4tph

Staff Costs 7.3 3.8

Rolling Stock Lease 7.9 4.2

Rolling Stock Maintenance 3.3 1.7

Fixed Track Access Charge (FTAC) 6.1 3.2

Variable Track Access Charge (VTAC)

0.3 0.3

Diesel fuel 1.3 0.7

Total 26.3 13.9

Source: TfL

3.3.2.2 These costs draw on the following assumptions:

A service pattern operating over an 18-hour day, with train frequency

consistent on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

Operation by 4-car diesel units (modelled as class 172s); and

requirement for a fleet of 15 or 8 units (for the 8tph and 4tph options

respectively)

Infrastructure charges assuming CP6 rates

No explicit inclusion of station operating costs

3.3.2.3 Review of these costs has identified the following considerations:

Passenger demand may not require the capacity of 4-car trains and

opportunity to operate shorter trains (if such units were available)

would reduce rolling stock least costs (indicatively by 20 per cent)

Operation of alternative rolling stock, for example converted or new

battery or hybrid powered units, has the potential to also reduce rolling

stock costs, albeit the market for such units is currently developing


83

and little certainty is currently available over the possible cost

reductions

Fixed Track Access Charge is calculated based on number of train

miles in accordance with industry standard practice. There is however

some potential for this to reduce if, upon consultation with the ORR, it

is recognised that costs are reduced following the addition of a new

operator on the route

Station operating costs should be considered for four stations.

Assuming an indicative annual average operating cost per station of

£300k, this adds £1.2m of cost to the total above

3.3.2.4 On balance, total annual operating costs are retained at £26.3m and

£13.9m respectively for the two options within the economic assessment.

Whilst some opportunity for cost savings could be established this is offset

by a requirement to add station operating costs.

3.3.2.5 Further to the costs above, optimism bias at 1 per cent is added within the

economic appraisal.

3.3.3 Impact on Revenue

3.3.3.1 Revenue forecasts have been developed based on outputs from strategic

public transport modelling undertaken using TfL’s Railplan model61.

3.3.3.2 Key to these revenue forecasts are the following elements:

Morning peak period Railplan demand forecasts for 2031, reporting

passenger kms by public transport sub-mode

Fare per km (yield) assumptions

Annualisation and growth parameters

3.3.3.3 Table 32 reports the 2031 ‘steady state’ annual revenue forecast for the

8tph WLO option. Whilst WLO services themselves are forecast to

generate £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after consideration

61 The following schemes have been included within the Reference Case when calculating changes in

demand and revenue: 2031 bus services including Elizabeth Line related service changes; Jubilee and Northern Line upgrades; Updated District Line specification (Ealing Broadway service replaced by Piccadilly Line, 12tph Richmond service, 20tph Wimbledon service); Future updates to bus routes 440, H28 and E10 (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); Corrections to bus services in the Great West Corridor (sourced from validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); New Brent Cross West station; Station interchange adjustments at Hounslow, Syon Lane, Brentford, Kew Bridge, Osterley, Boston Manor, Northfields, South Ealing, Gunnersbury and Southall (sourced from validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); Old Oak Common Masterplan walk network updates (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); New Overground stations at Hythe Road and Old Oak Common Lane


84

of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground services, is a

much more modest £2m.

3.3.3.4 The forecasts shown are developed from Railplan outputs, following

application of an annualisation factor consistent with TfL business case

guidance62. Fare yield (see Table 33) is based on values calculated

directly from 2017 outturn statistics for aggregate transport usage on TfL

bus, London Underground and London Overground services. It is assumed

that WLO average fares per km are consistent with the existing London

Overground network (with Crossrail assumed to be equivalent to London

Underground).

Table 32: Annual revenue forecasts; 8tph WLO option, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)

Annual passenger kms


Annual Revenue (2017

prices)

West London Orbital 88.98 11.47 15.33

London Overground -7.40 -1.20 -1.27

London Underground -32.38 -2.75 -7.34

Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34

National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59

Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21

Total 22.84 3.31 2.27


32.08 3.08 3.86

Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph vs Standard Ref Case

Table 33: Yield assumptions, £ /km, 2017 prices

Yield

West London Orbital 0.17

London Overground 0.17

London Underground 0.23

Crossrail 0.23

National Rail (other services)

0.17

Bus 0.18

Source: BCDM and WLO Funding Study analysis

3.3.3.5 Modelling of revenue forecasts for the 4tph sensitivity has been

undertaken in a consistent manner (see Table 34).

62 As per BCDM, an annualisation factor of 1076 has been used. Analysis of using more bespoke

annualisation factors has been considered within the Funding Study, but the sensitivity to alternative approaches was found to be low.


85

Table 34: Annual revenue forecasts: 4tph sensitivity, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)



Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)




Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43

National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65

Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23

Total 23.84 2.16 3.15


33.44 2.41 4.80

Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 4tph vs Standard Ref Case

3.3.3.6 The result from the 4tph sensitivity is that annual revenue is higher than

the 8tph option. This is despite the revenue directly on WLO services being

over 20 per cent lower in the 4tph option, and results from higher levels of

abstraction from other modes (notably bus and London Underground) in

the 8tph scenario63.The reason for this low revenue benefit compared to

operating costs is due to the abstraction from higher yielding modes and

reduction in journey length given that WLO allows for more direct journeys

(for example avoiding higher zone 1 fares).

3.3.3.7 In addition to the revenue forecasts set out above for the standard 8tph

option and 4tph sensitivity, modelling and revenue forecasts have also

been produced assuming the two alternative land use scenarios (Table

35).

63 The Railplan results for the standard 4tph and 8tph options have been developed using a fixed

demand matrix generated from TfL’s LTS model. This LTS model run represents the 8tph option and therefore biases the results of the 4tph option leading to lower abstraction relative to expected levels.


86

Table 35: Annual revenue forecasts: Alternative land use scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m

(2017 prices)

8tph Alternative land use scenario: WLO dependent

Development

8tph Alternative land use scenario: Maximum

Development

Annual passenger

kms


Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)

Annual passenger

kms


Annual Revenue

(2017 prices)

West London Orbital 93.79 12.15 16.16 101.88 13.33 17.56

London Overground -8.29 -1.34 -1.43 -9.12 -1.46 -1.57

London Underground -34.94 -3.14 -7.92 -40.52 -3.67 -9.18

Crossrail 5.53 -0.08 1.25 5.45 -0.20 1.23

National Rail (other services) -9.41 0.17 -1.62 -11.89 0.14 -2.05

Bus -24.53 -4.75 -4.48 -27.52 -5.62 -5.02

Total 22.14 3.00 1.97 18.28 2.53 0.97

sub-total (excluding franchised rail) 31.55 2.83 3.59 30.17 2.38 3.02

Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs Ref Case with alternative land use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per cent dependent development), the forecast revenue would be higher.

3.3.3.8 Table 36 summarises the revenue forecasts for the 8tph option, the 4tph

sensitivity and the alternative land use scenarios.

Table 36: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4tph sensitivity including

assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)

8tph Standard

Case

Sensitivity: 4tph

8tph Alternative land use

scenario: WLO dependent

Development

8tph Alternative land use scenario: Maximum

Development

Annual passenger kms, m

23 24 22

18

Annual passenger journeys, m

3 2 3

3

Annual Revenue, £m (2017 prices)

2.3 3.1 2.0 1.0

Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis

3.3.4 Summary of Costs and Revenues

3.3.4.1 Table 37 summarises revenue and costs over the 60 years of the appraisal

for the 8tph and 4tph core scenarios.

Table 37: Summary of cost and revenues, £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60

years)

8tph 4tph

Revenue 66.4 92.3

Opex 585.7 309.0

Capex 178.9 178.9

Total Costs 764.5 487.8

Note demand for 4ph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as the 8tph scenario



87

3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits

3.4.1 Monetised Benefits

3.4.1.1 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been

used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice

changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding

changes in generalised time (comprising all journey elements i.e. walk

time, service wait time, service boarding penalty, in-vehicle time, in-vehicle

crowding penalty) due to the WLO were calculated and weighted by

demand to represent the journey time benefits of the WLO. These include

benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the Reference Case)

and new public transport users (trips attracted to public transport by WLO).

3.4.1.2 The benefits cover all zones within the Railplan model (which covers all of

the UK) and have been sense checked to ensure they are realistic.

However, a separate set of benefits has also been produced covering only

zones contained within the five London Boroughs served by the scheme,

to allow for the exclusion of potentially spurious (dis)benefits between

areas which in reality are unlikely to benefit from the scheme either

through direct use of WLO or through crowding relief on non-WLO

services.

3.4.1.3 Table 38 shows benefits for the 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity and alternative

land use scenarios. Note that benefits are generated by (a) trips attracted

to WLO and (b) trips using adjacent services which experience crowding

relief as a result of a shift in demand to WLO e.g. London Underground

Piccadilly Line services to central London. For the purposes of calculating

benefits, the land-use/development impact is assumed to be the same in

the Reference Case.


88

Table 38: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph, 4tph sensitivity

(versus Standard Reference Case) and alternative land use scenarios (versus Reference

Case with alternative land use)

WLO 8tph

WLO 4tph

WLO 8tph + WLO dependent Dev

WLO 8tph + Max Dev

Whole Model Benefits Existing Users 178,106 131,450 192,049 233,996

New Users 13,745 12,165 13,956 14,292

Total 191,850 143,614 206,005 248,289

From Hounslow 38,871 35,764 39,920 49,779

To Hounslow 50,082 41,318 58,412 71,370

From Ealing 36,530 24,338 39,164 47,260

To Ealing 17,362 12,008 20,247 22,580

From Brent 37,237 23,753 42,512 49,654

To Brent 16,092 11,309 17,413 21,757

From Camden 4,974 3,100 6,000 7,052

To Camden 10,063 6,343 10,322 12,683

From Barnet 14,941 15,489 17,652 19,465

To Barnet 8,948 8,250 9,549 11,081

Screened Benefits (To/From Hounslow/Ealing/Brent/Camden/ Barnet)

235,099 181,673 261,193 312,681

Source: Railplan

3.4.1.4 The highest benefits are in the Maximum Development scenario. This

represents the highest potential increase in trip-making in the WLO

corridor and therefore the highest level of transport user/non-user benefits

of the WLO scheme.

3.4.1.5 Externalities resulting from an increase in rail passenger km have been

considered and calculated using the marginal external cost methodology in

Table 39. As expected, these impacts are small compared to other

benefits. As the externality benefits are a function of the change in

passenger kilometres, the impacts are larger in the dependent

development scenarios, which assume a significant incremental change in

passenger travel.

3.4.1.6 However, since most of these trips are new trips resulting from the

proposed housing developments in the corridor, the methodology used

does not correctly capture the value of the benefits where dependency is

assumed. We have, however, for the purpose of completeness included

the externality benefits for all scenarios. However, the methodology should

be revised at the next stage of the business case development, and in

addition, the external costs on the existing network resulting from new trips

(due to land use development) be evaluated, as recommended in

WebTAG.


89

Table 39: Non-user benefits: £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60 years)

8tph 4tph

Road Decongestion 67 70

Accidents 1 1

Greenhouse Emissions -2 -2

Local Air Quality 0 0

Noise 0 0

3.4.2 Non-Monetised Benefits

3.4.2.1 Broadly speaking, we anticipate the scheme would provide the following

non-monetised benefits:

Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development

in the vicinity of the scheme. This would have economic benefits, in

terms of generating new economic activity and increasing incomes.

Economic outcomes would be further enhanced through increases in

local land and property values

Social impact through facilitating new housing development in the

vicinity of the scheme. This would have social benefits, in terms of

meeting local and London-wide housing needs. The scheme would

also increase accessibility to/from wider areas of London, thus

increasing job and housing opportunities. As an orbital scheme, it

would enable some trips to avoid Zone 1, thus further widening the

increase in accessibility provided by the scheme through lower fares

Supporting strategic transport planning and policy in accordance with

the London Plan. As a public transport scheme it would provide

additional capacity on the public transport network, thus relieving

existing overcrowded routes (in particular radial services to/from

central London) and it would serve existing and new land-uses in the

WLO corridor

Environmental benefits by encouraging mode shift from highway to

public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance

between home and job locations

3.5 Economic Appraisal

3.5.1 Key Assumptions

3.5.1.1 Appraisal assumptions are consistent with WebTAG and TfL’s business

case template.

3.5.2 Outcome of Quantified Analysis

3.5.2.1 Table 40 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the

standard 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity, and the two alternative land use


90

scenarios. For the purposes of calculating benefits, the land-

use/development impact is assumed to be the same in the Reference

Case.

3.5.2.2 In addition to the options and sensitivities outlined above, a further two

cost sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns

where capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible

further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Capital

costs would be considered in more detail at the next stage of business

case development.

3.6 Economic Case Conclusion

3.6.1.1 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the

benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This

indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

3.6.1.2 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to

identify the preferred service pattern.


91

Table 40: Appraisal results (60 years)

8tph core

Alternative land use: 8tph WLO dependent

Dev scenario

Alternative land use:

8tph Max Dev scenario


Service level

sensitivity: 4tph


Costs and Revenues

Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244

Road Infrastructure cost saving

0 0 0 0 0 0

Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309

Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553

Incremental Total Revenue

66 58 28 66 92 92

Total Financial Effect (NFE)

-698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461

Social Benefits

Time Saving (£m) 977 1049 1264 977 731 731

Road Decongestion (£m)

67 65 54 67 70 70

Accidents (£m) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Greenhouse emissions (£m)

-2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

Local Air Quality (£m)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Noise (£m) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Benefits (£m) 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799

Benefit: Cost Ratio

Present Value of Project Cost (£m) - including OBU

765 765 765 830 488 553

Net Revenue (£m, PV)

66 58 28 66 92 92

Indirect Taxation Loss (£m, PV)

3 2 2 3 3 3

Present Value of Social Benefit (£m) - PVB

1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799

Present Value of Project Benefit (£m)

1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802

PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461

NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341

BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0

Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time

Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values

Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario



92

4 Commercial Case

4.1 Description

4.1.1.1 The role of the Commercial Case is to provide details on the commercial

structure, procurement approach and accounting implications of the

project. This section sets out how TfL, Network Rail and the WLA would

approach procurement and commercial aspects of this project.

4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications

4.2.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have extensive experience in the procurement and

construction of major infrastructure projects, with construction works

having been undertaken in constrained and highly populated areas of

London. Examples of such projects include the extension of the London

Overground from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction and major station

improvement works including those at King’s Cross St Pancras and

Stratford.

Strategy and sourcing options

4.2.1.2 The project is supported by the Mayor and the West London Alliance and

is being developed by TfL, in collaboration with Network Rail. If the project

progresses then through close collaboration with these stakeholder groups

would be ensured.

4.2.1.3 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by TfL

or by Network Rail as the owner and provider of Great Britain’s National

Rail infrastructure. At this time the potential location of worksites has not

been determined and hence the need for Compulsory Purchase powers

beyond the boundary of railway land is unknown, although any future

Transport and Works Act Order process would address this issue.

4.2.1.4 Assuming that the project progresses and that further design details are

determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would

incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation

and management and the approach to the financing of the project. This

strategy would consider potential funding sources, as established in the

Financial Case, and risks associated with each of the aforementioned

elements.

4.2.1.5 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground.

Achieving efficiencies

4.2.1.6 Because of the extensive experience that TfL and Network Rail have in

delivering extensions to the London Overground network; both


93

organisations would be able to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of the

project. Network Rail also has the benefit of being the delivery agent of

many railway infrastructure projects across the UK.

4.2.1.7 Best practice would be incorporated from TfL and Network Rail’s prior

approaches to railway construction works and procurement.

External project support

4.2.1.8 It is anticipated that consultancy support would be required in the following

areas, in order to support future scheme development and consents

processes:

a) Legal

b) Environmental Impact Assessment

c) Engineering

d) Transport Planning

e) Planning and Socioeconomics

f) Architecture and Urban Design

g) Cost Estimating

h) Property Surveyors/ Land Referencing

Accounting implications

4.2.1.9 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.

4.3 Construction and operation

4.3.1.1 TfL would ensure that best practice is adopted in the construction and

operation of the project and methods to mitigate construction impacts

would be investigated.

4.3.1.2 As a public body, TfL has to meet the requirements of the Mayor of

London’s Responsible Procurement Policy consisting of the following

themes:

a) Environmental sustainability

b) Supplier diversity


94

c) Community benefits

d) Skills and employment

e) Fair employment

f) Ethical sourcing

4.3.1.3 In compliance with the GLA Group Responsible Procurement Policy, all

potential suppliers would be required to consider these elements in their

bid as part of any Invitation to Tender (ITT) for any future project support or

the design and build contract. Any appointed consultant or contractor

would be subject to a supplier performance plan.

4.3.1.4 It is understood that Network Rail operates similar requirements.

Supply chain utilisation

4.3.1.5 Although TfL undertakes procurement for projects implemented in the

capital, the wider benefits to the UK of said projects are extensive.

Services that TfL procures from outside of London for the construction of

the West London Orbital would add to the pipeline of capital investment

that supports jobs across the UK.

4.3.1.6 The procurement strategy for this stage of the project would be refined and

improved if it is progressed further.


95

5 Financial Case

5.1 Description

5.1.1.1 The role of the Financial Case is to set out the project and ongoing

operating costs and financing and funding arrangement to deliver the

scheme.

5.2 Financial Impact of the Project

5.2.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for

optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the

very early nature of this estimate, an 80% adjustment was added to reach

an estimate of £273m. These figures are based on work done by WSP for

the West London Alliance in 2017 64 with the additional costs for Lionel

Road station based on work done by WSP for LB Hounslow65.

Construction is forecast to start early 2020s and continue until

approximately 2028/29. We have also considered a sensitivity which

increases costs by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to

the scheme through additional scope. Table 41 sets out the scheme costs

in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost upon completion

of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by WebTag guidance for

the generation of the BCR) for both the core estimate and cost sensitivity.

Table 41: Capital Costs

Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn66

Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values

Core estimate £273m £321m £179m

Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m

5.2.1.2 Significant portions of the existing line that would be used for the scheme

are not electrified. The figures in the capital cost estimate do not account

for the electrification of these sections. This could be needed if it were

decided not to run diesel services and/or battery powered trains are not

considered suitable for the line.

5.2.1.3 Operating costs of the scheme are projected to be £26m per year and

revenue effect for TfL from just the WLO is forecast to be £15m. Net of

revenue abstracted from other TfL services, the net revenue is estimated

to be £4m67. Operations are forecasted to start in 2026 (phase 1) and 2029

(phase 2).

64 West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017)

65 Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014)

66 Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1

67 Mott MacDonald Funding Study. 8tph scenario


96

5.2.1.4 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business

Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the

delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding

would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be

balanced against revenue.

5.3 Capital Costs Funding

5.3.1.1 The following funding sources have been considered for the capital costs

of this scheme68:

Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned sites

Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new development unlocked by the scheme

Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions etc.

5.3.1.2 Analysis of CIL and business rates funding sources for capital costs was

done on the basis of 50 per cent attribution of the different funding sources

to the scheme. This is consistent with the fact that other infrastructure

requirements would also need to be met with the analysed funding

sources. Analysis of direct development proceeds raised assumed 100 per

cent allocation to the WLO scheme. Further work should consider other

potential sources of funding, including planning obligations and

Government programmes like the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

Development gains

5.3.1.3 A number of potential development sites have been identified along the

route of the scheme. Potential unlocked by the scheme would provide

opportunities for development of public sector owned sites as well as for

CIL receipts from other projects.

5.3.1.4 Potential CIL receipts were calculated on the basis of development

unlocked by the scheme and based on CIL rates relevant to each authority

(Table 42). The analysis assumes 35 per cent of residential development

is exempt from CIL to account for the provision of affordable housing. Two

scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario

delivering 8,800 units from which CIL can be captured and a Maximum

Development scenario delivering 29,300 units from which CIL can be

captured. These correspond to the scenarios outlined in Section 2.7.2.


97

Table 42: CIL Revenue

Estimated CIL revenues Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value

WLO Dependent Development scenario £45.0m £79.8m £31.3m

Maximum Development Scenario £128.4m £227.7m £89.3m

Source: WLO Funding Study analysis

5.3.1.5 Public sector bodies could also realise gains by directly developing publicly

owned sites along the WLO route (Table 43). This analysis included sites

from a variety of public sector bodies. Stakeholder cooperation would be

required to achieve the funding included in Table 43. Some of the sites

analysed may be allocated to other projects already, and the costs and

complexity of buying out leaseholds was not taken into consideration. Two

scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario

delivering and a Maximum Development scenario.

Table 43: Direct Development Proceeds

Estimated Direct Development Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value

WLO Dependent Development scenario £29m £40m £20m

Maximum Development Scenario £35m £44m £22m


Incremental Business Rates

5.3.1.6 The improvements in connectivity brought by the scheme would increase

land values of existing properties around each station, which would lead to

increased LPA business rates income. A 1km area of influence was

assumed for each station along the line.

5.3.1.7 In addition to existing land value increases, new commercial development

enabled by the scheme would also provide incremental LPA business rate

income.

5.3.1.8 The replacement of rateable value for current sites with the one for new

development causes negative business rates income during the

development period of the scheme. This means that, while significant,

positive business rates income is not assumed to begin until around 2040.

Business rates growth proceeds are summarised in Table 44.

68 Other funding sources may be available that have not been modelled in the study e.g. workplace

parking levy, incremental commercial income via over-site development. With any additional developer contribution, consideration is needed as to its marginal impact on development viability.


98

Table 44: Business Rates Growth

Estimated Business Rates Growth Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value

WLO Dependent Development scenario £299m £482m £109m

Maximum Development Scenario £550m £965m £208m


Wider Contributions

5.3.1.9 Other funding sources such as TfL contributions and workplace parking

levies, among others were considered for this scheme. The stressed

financial position of TfL and complex implementation of some of these

other alternatives means that they were considered unlikely to yield

funding for the scheme at the time of analysis.

Capital costs funding conclusions

5.3.1.10 While CIL and public-sector development are within the powers of the

LPAs affected by the scheme, retention of income from business rates

growth by each LPA would require the 1km zones of influence around of

each station to be designated as an Enterprise Zone by the UK

Government for up to 25 years (or an equivalent policy instrument would

need to be implemented by the UK Government).

5.3.1.11 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7

year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for

the scheme are projected to begin only after 2029. This means that there

would be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme.

5.3.1.12 The temporal mismatch of capital costs with available funding sources is

a significant challenge that would need to be addressed for the viability of

the scheme.

5.3.1.13 The challenge mentioned above is substantial. Although Figure 35 shows

that selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the

scheme69, further work to confirm and then secure the necessary funding

is required.

69 Public-sector financing scenario assuming 3 per cent fixed interest loan


99

Figure 35: Cash/debt balance

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

300,000,000

350,000,000

400,000,000

01

Jan

18

01

Jan

20

01

Jan

22

01

Jan

24

01

Jan

26

01

Jan

28

01

Jan

30

01

Jan

32

01

Jan

34

01

Jan

36

01

Jan

38

01

Jan

40

01

Jan

42

01

Jan

44

01

Jan

46

01

Jan

48

01

Jan

50

£

Debt balance Cash balance


5.4 Operating Costs Funding

5.4.1.1 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this

scheme:

Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts, including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the affordability of the operating side of the scheme

Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the services in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable

Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non-farebox income

Passenger Revenue

5.4.1.2 The core scenario outlined below represents an 8tph service (4tph from

Kew Bridge to Hendon and 4tph from Hounslow to West Hampstead).

Passenger revenue for the 8tph scenario is outlined in Table 45.

5.4.1.3 An annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset by revenue abstracted

from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of £4m of net revenue.


100

Table 45: Passenger Revenue (8tph scenario, 2031), £m, 2017 prices

Annual

passenger

kms

Annual passenger journeys Annual

Revenue

(2017

prices)




Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34

National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59

Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21

Total 22.84 3.31 2.27

Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 32.08 3.08 3.86


5.4.1.4 Alternative service patterns that could be used to manage cost would have

an impact on passenger revenue. The most beneficial alternate is a 4tph

service from Hounslow to Hendon. Passenger revenue for the 4tph

sensitivity is outlined in Table 46.

Table 46: Passenger Revenue (4tph sensitivity, 2031), £m, 2017 prices



Annual Revenue (2017 prices)




Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43

National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65

Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23

Total 23.84 2.16 3.15

Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 33.44 2.41 4.80


Operating Costs

5.4.1.5 Alternative service patterns could be used to manage operating costs. The

most beneficial alternate option is a 4tph service from Hounslow to

Hendon. Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are

outlined in Table 47.

Table 47: Operating Costs

Core Scenario (2018/19 prices)

4tph sensitivity (2018/19 prices)

Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m

Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m

Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m

Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m

Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m

Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m

Total £26.3m £13.8m

Source: TfL


101

5.4.1.6 Station operating costs are missing from the above analysis. Four new

stations would require operation70, and assuming and indicative annual

operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance,

utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating

costs.

Other Options

5.4.1.7 Alternative rolling stock options represent an opportunity to lower operating

costs, therefore improving the operating funding position for the scheme. A

series of alternative rolling stock options were evaluated on a high level

(see Table 48).

Table 48: Alternative Rolling Stock Assessment

Lease Cost

Maintenance Cost

Energy consumption

Quality of interior

Reliability Performance

Availability

Class 769 Lowest Unknown Low Upgrade req Unknown Medium Soon

Class 755 Highest Unknown Unknown New build Unknown Unknown New Build

Class 379 High Unknown Low Refurbishment may be needed

High Good Not currently available

Class 350 Flex

High Unknown Medium Refurbishment may be needed

Very High

Good In development

Hybrid DMU

Medium Unknown Highest Refurbishment may be needed

Medium Medium In development

5.4.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have

been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to

materially change the operating funding requirement.

Operating costs funding conclusions

5.4.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to WLO passenger revenue

of £12-15m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding

requirement and need for a significant operating subsidy.

5.4.1.10 The low level of passenger revenue relative to operating costs is

significantly influenced by the nature of the WLO as an orbital train service,

not directly serving central London and mostly contained within Travelcard

fare zones 3 and 4. These characteristics, and the fact that the WLO

creates new direct journey opportunities that abstract from other modes,

leads to a decrease in average fare yield that offsets the income from new

public transport trips.

70 Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be

part of existing operational station by time of opening.


102

5.4.1.11 Housing and commercial development stimulated by the WLO creates

opportunity for increased passenger revenue that could be significant in

reducing the need for operating subsidy. This would be a matter for further

consideration in future stages of the project.

5.4.1.12 Options to remove any operating subsidy will need to be identified as part

of future phases of scheme development work.


103

6 Management Case

6.1 Description

6.1.1.1 The role of the Management Case is to assess whether a proposal is

deliverable. It reviews evidence from similar projects, sets out project

planning, governance structure, risk management, stakeholder

management, benefits realisation and assurance.

6.1.1.2 TfL and/ or Network Rail would prepare an Assurance and Approvals Plan.

6.1.1.3 A Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for the project. Prior

consultation on the proposed Old Oak Overground stations has indicated

that there is local support for the introduction of passenger services on the

Dudding Hill line in west London.

6.1.1.4 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles and TfL

would ensure robust project reporting mechanisms are in place.

6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects

6.2.1.1 TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing

significant infrastructure projects and securing necessary consents

required.

6.2.1.2 This includes network extensions such as the Northern Line Extension on

the London Underground network and the East London Line Extension

from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction on the London Overground

network. TfL also has experience in delivering new/ upgraded stations on

the existing rail network such as Langdon Park DLR station and Wood

Lane tube station.

6.3 Consents Strategy

6.3.1.1 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred

approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has

been identified that the principal consent likely to be required to authorise

the works (including land acquisition) is a Transport and Works Act Order

(TWAO). There are also other types of planning, heritage and

environmental consents that are likely to be required. The Strategy is a live

document that would be subject to ongoing internal review and be updated

as necessary.

6.3.1.2 The project would have a dedicated TfL Consents Advisor(s). Supported

by the west London LPAs through the WLA, they would provide guidance

on all planning matters, be involved in discussions and negations with the

relevant local planning authorities and stakeholders and manage external


104

planning and environmental specialists undertaking assessment work and

preparing the documents required for submissions. The Consents

Advisor(s) would be involved in the preparation and submission of the

consents applications, post-submission work such as preparing for a

Planning Inquiry, drafting representations and conditions, and post-

decision work such as secondary consents (approval of details or

amending conditions).

6.4 Project assumptions

6.4.1.1 At this early stage some key project assumptions have to be made. The

management case has been prepared on the basis of TfL’s approach but

this is subject to change if there is a change of project sponsor and/ or

delivery agent.

6.4.1.2 It is assumed that TfL would cooperate with and have support from WLA

LPAs, Network Rail and other relevant organisations regarding the

progression of the WLO project.

6.4.1.3 A funding study has been commissioned by Mott MacDonald, and has

been used to inform the Economic case and Financial case. It is assumed

that sufficient funding would be available to support the planning and

development stages of the project although no funding has been formally

secured.

6.4.1.4 It is assumed that land required for the build and operation of new railway

infrastructure could be acquired through the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act (2004).

6.5 Project risk

6.5.1.1 TfL considers the scheme to be relatively standard in terms of project risk,

given the company’s extensive experience in revitalising underutilised

railway infrastructure, notably the extension of the London Overground

from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction.

6.5.1.2 Project risk would be actively managed according to best practice

principles and the stage at which the project is at. The full involvement of

the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and through the WLA would

help minimise planning policy and other regulatory risks.

6.5.1.3 Some risk is carried in the aforementioned assumptions that are necessary

to make, at this stage.

6.5.1.4 Should the scheme be developed further, a comprehensive risk

management strategy would be implemented which would improve the

accuracy of forecast costs and economic appraisal.


105

6.6 Governance

6.6.1.1 TfL would ensure that strong project governance principles are followed.

6.6.1.2 An organisational structure has been proposed, which is subject to change

as project requirements and external processes are identified in a detailed

manner.

Figure 36: Proposed project governance structure

6.6.1.3 The project would be subject to both TfL and local authority governance

procedures.

6.6.1.4 At this stage, the project is overseen by a working group at TfL. The group

meets fortnightly and meets regularly with WLA LPAs and Network Rail.

6.7 Assurance

6.7.1.1 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.


106

Internal assurance procedure

6.7.1.2 TfL uses a number of mechanisms to improve the management of its

major projects in order to ensure the objectives and benefits of a scheme

at inception are realised following implementation. TfL’s project

management framework, known as Pathway, provides consistency in

approach and the tools required for planning and delivery teams, whilst

retaining flexibility in its application to manage and control a project.

Embedded into Pathway is a delivery assurance process using stage

gates, upon which TfL utilises industry-leading external expertise to review

and challenge all aspects of the project.

6.7.1.3 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 project factors such as scale,

complexity, novelty, project team experience and strategic importance. 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.

6.7.1.4 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.

6.7.1.5 Underlying these stage gates are a number of assurance activities

conducted by both TfL and the suppliers and include activities such as

design reviews, safety assessments, risk reviews, commercial

assessments, estimate validation, material testing and product testing.

Programme Management Office review

6.7.1.6 The PMO is part of TfL but is not accountable for delivery. These reviews

are typically Integrated Assurance Reviews (IAR), undertaken by a

combination of PMO staff, consultant external experts (EE) or peer groups

from outside the delivery organisation.

External assurance procedure

6.7.1.7 TfL has the option of establishing an Independent Peer Review Group

(IPRG). This approach has been followed for other major TfL projects. If

appropriate, the IPRG could be appointed should the project progress

further.

Network Rail assurance process

6.7.1.8 The project would also be subject to Network Rail’s Governance for

Railways Investment Projects (GRIP) assurance process.


107

6.8 Communication and stakeholder management

6.8.1.1 Prior consultation on the proposed Old Oak Common London Overground

stations has indicated that there is support for the introduction of

passenger services on the Dudding Hill line, which is within the scope of

the WLO project.

6.8.1.2 A comprehensive Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for

the project in conjunction with the west London LPAs. The project team

would be responsible for keeping stakeholders appropriately engaged.

6.8.1.3 The Stakeholder Management Plan would provide a brief on the objectives

of the stakeholder engagement, target audience and methodology. This

would be updated and expanded as required.

6.8.1.4 Currently, quarterly project updates are provided to a stakeholder group.

Members of this group include WLA LPAs and Network Rail.

6.9 Project reporting

6.9.1.1 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles. TfL

would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting

processes.

6.9.1.2 These would align with the project governance framework, integrating key

stakeholder requirements, facilitating continuous monitoring and

incorporating accurate performance measurement. The purpose of this is

to provide accurate provide accurate project information in a timely manner

to ensure well informed decisions are made and appropriate action is

taken.

6.10 Project milestones and timescales

6.10.1.1 Table 49 outlines key project milestones.

Table 49: Project milestones

Milestone Description Date

Further feasibility 2019-2020 Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022 Construction Early 2020s Operation 2026 for Phase 1

2029 for Phase 2


108

7 Summary

7.1 Overall Assessment

7.1.1.1 The WLO scheme has the potential to address three critical strategic

issues facing west and north west London

A new rail service could bring land into use for housing and

employment, and link Opportunity Areas and town centres together to

drive sustainable growth in the sub-region.

A new orbital transport link would provide the connectivity needed to

address public transport severance between west and north London,

notably between Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent

Cross/Cricklewood. The WLO would enable direct journeys between the

Hounslow Loop and North London line, enabling people from across west

and north west London to directly access employment clusters such as

the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’ and Park Royal. Furthermore, by

providing a high quality orbital public transport link, with interchanges with

key radial routes at Brent Cross West, Neasden, Harlesden, Old Oak and

Hounslow, the WLO would make enable one-stop journeys to multiple

employment centres and Opportunity Areas across the sub-region for

residents and in-commuters from the Wider South East.

The provision of new public transport and connectivity could deliver

benefits to the wider transport system. The WLO could encourage

mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes which would help to

reduce congestion. The scheme would provide crowding relief on some

of the busiest rail lines in the sub-region, such as the Piccadilly line.

7.1.1.2 The 8tph WLO scheme has been tested, alongside sensitivities

considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of

development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is

between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between

1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for

money.

7.1.1.3 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7

year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for

the scheme are projected to begin after 2029. This means that there would

be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme. Although

selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the

scheme on present value terms, further work to confirm and then secure

the necessary funding is required.


109

7.1.1.4 Operating costs exceed revenue for both the 8tph scheme and alternative

4tph scheme. Further work would be required to close this subsidy gap.

Housing growth could create opportunity for increased revenue.

7.2 Next Steps

7.2.1.1 Based on the conclusions of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the

scheme to be taken forward to the next stage of business case

development.

7.2.1.2 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to

identify the preferred service pattern, develop a financing strategy, and

further develop options to close the subsidy gap relating to operating costs.


110

8 Glossary

Glossary

Community

Infrastructure Levy

(CIL)

Planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local

authorities to deliver infrastructure to support development. New

development of more than 100sqm or 1 dwelling is potentially liable for the

levy.

Fixed Track Access

Charge

Charge payable by franchised passenger operators that recovers any

remaining income required to meet Network Rail’s total revenue

requirement.

Good Growth The concept of delivering new homes, neighbourhoods and workspaces in a

way that creates successful, inclusive and sustainable places. In a transport

context this involves designing places that better facilitate active travel and

the use of public transport, rather than the private car.

Healthy Streets

Approach

Approach to planning that puts people and their health at the centre of

decision making. Adopted by TfL to improve air quality, reduce congestion

and help make London’s diverse communities greener, healthier and more

attractive places to live and work.

Independent Peer

Review Group (IPRG)

A group of independent subject experts that are selected to scrutinise a

[transport] project.

London Transportation

Studies Model (LTS)

Multi-modal strategic transport model of London and its surrounds. LTS

models how many trips there are likely to be, their origins and destinations

and their modes of transport. Used to assess the impact of a transport

scheme or development.

Opportunity Area Designated area of major brownfield land in London that has significant

capacity for development, typically being able to accommodate at least

5,000 new jobs and/ or 2,500 new homes.

Railplan Strategic Public Transport Model for London and the South East. Calculates

the likely route and service choices of public transport users and the

resulting levels of crowding on public transport networks.

Strategic Housing

Land Availability

Assessment (SHLAA)

Technical study used to determine the quantity and suitability of land

potentially available for housing development. A London-wide SHLAA is

carried out to determine borough housing targets, which form a key part of

the London Plan.

Web-Based

Connectivity

Assessment Toolkit

(WebCAT)

Application uses PTAL to assess connectivity to the public transport

network, combining walk time to the network with service wait times.

Through the use of Time Mapping Analysis (TIM), connectivity throughout

the transport network (i.e. how far a traveller can go) is expressed as a

series of travel time catchments.


111

List of Acronyms

CAZ Central Activities Zone

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy

DfT Department for Transport

FTAC Fixed Track Access Charge

GLA Greater London Authority

GRIP Governance for Railway Investment Projects

GWML Great Western Main Line

HS2 High Speed 2

IPRG Independent Peer Review Group

LB "_" London Borough of "_"

LPA Local Planning Authority

LSIS Locally Significant Industrial Site

LTS London Transportation Studies Model

MTS Mayor's Transport Strategy

NFE Total Financial Effect

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NPV Net Present Value

OA Opportunity Area

OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework

ORR Office for Rail and Road

PMO Project Management Office

PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level

PV Present Value of Project Cost

PVB Present Value of Social Benefit

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

SIL Strategic Industrial Land/ Location

SOBC Strategic Outline Business Case

TfL Transport for London

TIM Time Mapping Analysis

TPH Trains per Hour

TWAO Transport Works Act Order

WebCAT Web-Based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit

WLA West London Alliance

WLO West London Orbital

WTT Working Timetable

Documents

West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Casecontent.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-orbital-strategic... · West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019 3 0