Transport Strategy Key Component Study...Table 5.16 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of...

Setting Strategic Direction Transport Strategy Key Component Study

Report for London Borough of Brent

February 2009

Document Control

Project Title: Wembley Key Components Study

MVA Project Number: C377700

Document Type: Report

Directory & File Name: Q:\Projects\C37772 Wembley Key Components Study\Reports

Document Approval

Primary Author: John Emslie

Other Author(s): Paul Matthews, Mackenzie Nicholson, Chris Whitehead, Conrad Haigh, Tim

Cuthbert

Reviewer(s): Tim Cuthbert

Formatted by: YJ

Distribution

Issue Date Distribution Comments

1 31/01/2009 Final Draft Report Client Group

2 16/02/2009 Final Report Client Group

Transport Strategy Key Component Study 2

Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 1.1 Background 1.1 1.2 Masterplan Transport Sub-strategies 1.2 1.3 Sub-strategy application and mode shift 1.2 1.4 Comparative Report and Masterplan Delivery 1.3

2 Bus Strategy 2.1 2.2 Existing situation 2.1 2.3 Bus strategy incentives 2.10 2.4 Future demand and capacity considerations 2.16 2.5 Deliverability 2.20

3 Travel Demand Management Strategy 3.1 3.1 Introduction 3.1 3.2 Background 3.1 3.3 Smarter Travel Research and Evidence Base 3.5 3.4 Workplace Travel Plans (WTP) 3.6 3.5 School Travel Plans (STP) 3.9 3.6 Personal Travel Planning (PTP) 3.12 3.7 Car Sharing Schemes (CSS) 3.14 3.8 Area Based Travel Planning (ABTP) 3.16 3.9 Car Clubs (CC) 3.18 3.10 Cycle Hire Schemes (CHS) 3.21 3.11 Flexible Working Hours and Home or Teleworking (FWH) 3.22 3.12 Off-Peak/ Overnight Servicing (OPOS) 3.24 3.13 Real Time Publicity on Travel Opportunities (RTP) 3.25 3.14 Car Free Development Potential (CFD) 3.27 3.15 Co-ordinated Home Delivery Systems (CHDS) 3.28 3.16 Taxi Hire (TH) 3.30 3.17 Conclusions 3.31 3.1 Deliverability 3.35

4 Travel Demand Forecasting 4.1 4.1 Transport Assessment Model 4.1 4.2 Model Outputs 4.1

5 Highway Corridor Impact 5.1 5.1 Introduction 5.1 5.2 The Highway Corridor 5.1 5.3 Methodology 5.1 5.4 Forty Avenue / Forty Lane / Bridge Road Junction 5.2 5.5 Wembley Park Drive / North End Road 5.5 5.6 The Wembley Park Drive / Empire Way gyratory 5.6

Contents


5.7 Empire Way / Fulton Road junction 5.9 5.8 Empire Way / Engineers Way junction 5.10 5.9 The Empire Way / Wembley Hill Road Gyratory 5.11 5.10 Wembley Hill Road / South Way / Mostyn Avenue junction 5.12 5.11 Wembley Hill Road / High Road / Harrow Road Junction (The Triangle) 5.15

6 Strategy integration and implementation 6.1 6.1 Introduction 6.1 6.2 Movement Intervention Assessment Process 6.1 6.3 Deliverability 6.5

Tables

Table 2.1 Bus routes frequency and destinations 2.3 Table 2.2 Interchanges available at transport hubs 2.7 Table 2.3 Existing passenger distributions 2.9 Table 2.4 2008 Spare capacity by route 2.10 Table 2.5 Future demand distribution (to be revised with TAM output) 2.17 Table 2.6 Bus strategy cost estimates 2.20 Table 3.1 Applicable measure by land use 3.3 Table 3.2 iTRACE Results for Workplace Travel Plans (correct on January 13th 2008) 3.9 Table 3.3 Summary of Characteristics of Workplace TPs: 3.9 Table 3.4 iTrace STP output 3.11 Table 3.5 Summary table of Characteristics of School TPs 3.12 Table 3.6 Summary of Characteristics of Personal TPs: 3.14 Table 3.7 Summary of Characteristics of Car Sharing Schemes 3.16 Table 3.8 Summary of Characteristics of Area Based TP: 3.18 Table 3.9 Summary of Characteristics of Car Clubs 3.20 Table 3.10 Summary of Characteristics of Cycle Hire Schemes 3.22 Table 3.11 Summary of Characteristics of Flexible Working Hours and Teleworking 3.24 Table 3.12 Summary of Characteristics of Off-Peak/ Overnight Servicing 3.25 Table 3.13 Summary of Characteristics of Real Time Publicity on Travel Opportunities 3.27 Table 3.14 Summary of Characteristics of Car Free Development Potential 3.28 Table 3.15 Summary of Characteristics of Co-ordinated Home Delivery Systems 3.29 Table 3.16 Summary of Characteristics of Taxi Hire 3.31 Table 3.17 Overall potential impact of TDM measures 3.32 Table 4.1 Stage 1 Percentage change from baseline 4.4 Table 4.2 Stage 4 Percentage change from baseline 4.4 Table 5.1 Forty Avenue/ Bridge Rd Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1 5.3 Table 5.2 Forty Avenue/ Bridge Rd Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4 5.3 Table 5.3 Forty Avenue/ Bridge Rd Option 2 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1 5.4 Table 5.4 Forty Avenue/ Bridge Rd Option 2 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4 5.5 Table 5.5 North End Rd/ Bridge Rd Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1 5.6 Table 5.6 North End Rd/ Bridge Rd Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4 5.6 Table 5.7 Wembley Park Drive/ Empire Way Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage

1 5.8 Table 5.8 Wembley Park Drive/ Empire Way Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage

4 5.8

Contents


Table 5.9 Fulton Road/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1 5.10 Table 5.10 Fulton Road/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4 5.10 Table 5.11 Engineers Way/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1 5.11 Table 5.12 Engineers Way/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4 5.11 Table 5.13 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 1 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis

Stage 1 5.13 Table 5.14 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 1 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis

Stage 4 5.13 Table 5.15 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis Stage

1 5.14 Table 5.16 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis Stage

4 5.15 Table 5.17 Wembley Hill Rd/ Harrow Rd (The Triangle) TRANSYT Analysis Stage 1 5.16 Table 5.18 Wembley Hill Rd/ Harrow Rd (The Triangle) TRANSYT Analysis Stage 4 5.16 Table 6.1 Movement intervention 6.2 Table 6.2 Intervention Contribution Rating and Priority 6.5 Table 6.3 Transport Strategy Delivery Action Plan 6.7

Figures

Figure 2.1 Bus services to Wembley Park ............................................................... 2.2

Figure 2.2 Bus services to Wembley Central............................................................ 2.2

Figure 2.3 Existing AM Bus travel times (inbound) ................................................... 2.4

Figure 2.4 Existing AM Bus travel times (Outbound) ................................................ 2.5

Figure 2.5 Existing PM Bus travel times (inbound) ................................................... 2.5

Figure 2.6 Existing PM Bus travel times (outbound) ................................................. 2.6

Figure 2.7 Exisiting Wembly Central Interchange Facilities........................................ 2.7

Figure 2.8 Exciting Wembley Park Interchange facilities ........................................... 2.8

Figure 2.9 Existing stopping facilities in industrial area............................................. 2.8

Figure 2.10 Proposed routing through site .............................................................2.11

Figure 2.11 Wembley Master plan 2008 proposed bus routes ...................................2.12

Figure 2.12 Potential location for Southbound bus facilities ......................................2.14

Figure 2.13 Existing real time information at NB Wembley Park bus stop...................2.15

Figure 2.14 Atchitectural branding potential for bus stops........................................2.16

Figure 2.15 Improvements in travel time AM (inbound)...........................................2.18

Figure 2.16 Improvements in travel time AM (outbound).........................................2.18

Figure 2.17 Improvements in travel time PM(inbound) ...........................................2.19

Figure 2.18 Improvements in travel time PM (outbound) ........................................2.19

Figure 3.1 Workplace travel plans, time scales ........................................................ 3.5

Figure 3.2 Wembley Liftshare catchment ..............................................................3.15

Figure 3.3 Impacts and Costs of TDM measure based on mean average numbers .......3.34

Figure 4.1 Total trips generated ...........................................................................4.38

Figure 4.2 Stage 1 mode split ..............................................................................4.39

Figure 4.3 Stage 4 Mode split...............................................................................4.39

Figure 5.1 Wembley Hill Road S/B Uniform Queue Profile (AM peak) .........................5.17

Figure 6.1 Movement Intervention Assessment ....................................................... 6.1

Contents


Appendices

Appendix A – TAM output turning diagrams

Appendix B – Indicative junction layouts for Western Highway Corridor

Transport Strategy Key Component Study i

Summary

Delivering the Masterplan

The Wembley Masterplan Transport Strategy Review report issued in November 2008

presented a technical review of the transport elements of the Draft Wembley Masterplan

2008. It assessed the deliverability of the Masterplan in transport terms, examining the

various transport infrastructure proposals and related initiatives proposed to support

movement associated with the Masterplan’s development content and coverage.

The report raised some question regarding the Masterplan’s deliverability in transport terms

given concern over the level of traffic forecast to result from the Masterplan development.

The road network was anticipated to be substantially overloaded at key points during

Masterplan Stage 1, worsening with each subsequent Masterplan stage though action to

provide additional capacity on the road network was shown to assist in prolonging its life.

However, the desirability of a highways based approach was also viewed as questionable,

particularly considering the wider needs and objectives of the Masterplan which is predicated

on a high quality living, working, retail and leisure environment. Though the benefits and

importance of car use and access to and within the area were acknowledged, delivery of

those essential core qualities were deemed too important to be threatened by possible over

reliance on a highways based access and movement philosophy.

Promoting a sustainable travel mode shift

Rather than re-assessing the development scale, an alternative course was taken leading to

this study. Further Masterplan development was proposed with a greater emphasis and

identified credible action on minimising the need for travel and encouraging travel by non car

modes. From a variety of suggested Masterplan transport sub-strategies including

accessibility and freight movement, two were taken forward for further study, a bus strategy,

and a travel demand management strategy.

The initial report had estimated that the effect of the Masterplan’s transport interventions in

terms of encouraging shift away from the private car would be modest, amounting to about a

4% change over the do-minimum scenario. A substantial increase on that was considered

necessary to provide for development-related access avoiding a reliance on over-sized

junctions and in a manner consistent with wider Masterplan objectives.

This report has examined the likely contribution to mode shift to be made through a

concerted programme of bus improvements and travel demand management interventions.

Through further application of the bespoke Transport Assessment Model (TAM) for Wembley,

the likely transport impacts of identified transport interventions have been quantified. The

further bus and TDM interventions examined here indicate a potential travel mode shift of

13% from the present day baseline figure of 27:63 (car:other modes) to completion of Stage

4, an increase of a further 9% over the figure assumed for those measures outlined within

the Masterplan. The TDM interventions, are expected to take several years to deliver their

full benefit but will play a significant role in mode transfer, complemented and partly reliant

on the bus interventions.

Summary

Transport Strategy Key Component Study ii

Western highways corridor assessment

In parallel with this work, a technical review of the layout and operation of the Western

Highway Corridor has been undertaken, comprising Wembley Hill / Road /Empire Way /

Bridge Road and all junctions, existing and proposed, including the terminating junctions at

Forty Lane and Wembley Triangle. The review identifies an ‘optimum’ set of corridor

improvements consistent with the aspirations of the Masterplan. Those feasibility designs are

tested in terms of their operation and performance with the overall corridor network

performance taken forward for consideration alongside the needs and performance of the

other two sub-strategies.

The highway corridor work concluded that, provided the bus and TDM strategies and related

interventions deliver the estimated reductions in traffic flow, all of the junctions designed and

tested could cater for the worst case Masterplan related traffic volumes. The junction

performance modelling indicated that all junctions operate within acceptable limits providing

pedestrian, cycling and bus facilities consistent with the Masterplan’s wider objectives. The

Wembley Hill Road/ Harrow Road/ Wembley High Road ‘Triangle’ junction exhibits some peak

hour queuing and would benefit from further and detailed junction design development.

Masterplan deliverability re-appraisal

This further appraisal has identified and confirmed the feasibility and potential for measures

to both minimise the need for travel and secure a substantial travel mode shift away from

the private car towards the use of sustainable transport modes. Through the provision of

enhanced bus services and facilities and the implementation of a range of travel demand

management measures, sufficient reductions in development related traffic flow are achieved

such that sufficient comfort is given that the transport network will be able to deliver

estimated Masterplan related movement.

Though there remains a measure of caution over the performance of the southernmost

Wembley Hill Road/Harrow Road/Wembley High Road junction regarding predicted peak hour

vehicle queuing though it is possible that further detailed design may release the required

performance shortfall.

It must be noted that in relation to travel demand management, the various initiatives,

measures, movement predictions and performance assessments have been

developed/made/conducted in the context of our research into a number of matters where

available industry experience and research is scarce. Practise in this field is in its infancy and

available evidence patchy. However, best efforts have been made by MVA’s industry-leading

TDM team to uncover relevant and recent research and present a robust assessment of this

important area.

The estimates presented must also be viewed in the context of a Masterplan period

extending to 2026. Clearly, during that time much may change, some initiatives may fall by

the wayside, others may take their place. Prevailing traffic levels may shift, as may travel

mode choice. The work presented here though represents our best estimate of the likely

contributions to be made through the introduction of active and purposeful bus improvement

and TDM programmes. Principal among those interventions in terms of mode shift

contribution are increases to bus service frequencies to and within the Masterplan area, and

the TDM interventions of; Workplace and School Travel Planning, Area Based and Personal

Travel Planning, and Smart\Flexible Working.

Summary

Transport Strategy Key Component Study iii

Transport Strategy Delivery Action Plan

In order to achieve and perhaps improve upon the traffic flow reductions presented by this

report, this report recommends that the council embarks upon a serious and purposeful

programme of activities to ensure those measures and initiatives presented can be woven

into the fabric of the Masterplan.

A transport delivery strategy, further developing the various measures presented by this

report, would investigate and describe how those interventions may best be realised in the

full planning context, giving full consideration to funding sources and mechanisms,

infrastructure and scheme timing, delivery partners, performance monitoring and where

relevant, enforcement. Initial consideration has been given to those matters by this report,

but further concerted consideration is recommended in order to best plan for effective

Masterplan delivery.

Transport Strategy Key Component Study 1.1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This report follows the Wembley Masterplan Transport Strategy Review (WMTSR) report

prepared for Brent Council and issued in November 2008 which presented a technical review

of the transport elements of the Draft Wembley Masterplan 2008. The report assessed the

deliverability of the Masterplan in transport terms, examining the various transport

infrastructure proposals and related initiatives proposed to support movement associated

with the Masterplan’s development content and coverage.

1.1.2 It also examined the trigger points for transport intervention, in the form of infrastructure

and initiatives, from the present day throughout the Masterplan period to the year 2026 in

relation to the proposed four Masterplan phases. A number of Masterplan amendments were

proposed in terms of the nature and timing of infrastructure and initiatives along with an

assessment of the appropriate scale of development proposed by the Masterplan.

1.1.3 The identified interventions were assessed through the development and application of the

bespoke Transport Assessment Model (TAM) for Wembley, which quantified the likely

transport impacts of the Masterplan proposals, in turn providing a valuable insight into the

adequacy of the emerging transport strategy elements in delivering a sustainable access

solution.

1.1.4 The report concluded that the Masterplan’s deliverability in transport terms was questionable

given that the level of resultant traffic forecasts gave significant cause for concern. During

build-out of the Masterplan Stage 1, the road network was anticipated to be substantially

overloaded at key points and worsened with each subsequent Masterplan Stage. However,

action to provide additional capacity on the road network was shown to assist in prolonging

the road network’s life.

1.1.5 The desirability, practicality or affordability of ‘building a way out’ of the potential problems

was viewed as questionable too, particularly considering the needs of other users and

interests such as pedestrians, cyclists, and bus movement, together with the wider needs

and objectives of the Masterplan. The Masterplan describes a forward-looking, high quality,

and convivial environment for those living and working there, along with those visiting for

leisure and shopping reasons. Whilst recognising the benefits and importance of car use and

access to and within the area, it is also important to not threaten delivery of those essential

core qualities through over reliance on a highways-based access and movement philosophy.

1.1.6 One course of action identified was to re-think the scale of the development, though this was

considered premature if traffic impact was the only issue. An alternative course of action was

identified whereby further Masterplan development with greater emphasis and identified

credible action on minimising the need for travel and encouraging travel by non car modes.

The work undertaken for the initial report had indicated that the effect of the Masterplan’s

transport interventions in terms of encouraging mode shift away from the private car would

be modest, amounting to about a 4% change over the do-minimum scenario. An increase on

that was considered necessary in order to provide for development-related access in a

manner consistent with wider Masterplan objectives.

1 Introduction


1.2 Masterplan Transport Sub-strategies

1.2.1 In an effort to test the scope of further mode transfer, the WMTSR proposed the

development of a number of Masterplan transport sub-strategies, including; accessibility,

walk and cycle, freight/servicing, event day management, parking (including coaches), and

public realm. Further study was recommended to provide the needed additional detailed

examination of each of those matters to optimise Masterplan related movement; with the

aim of minimising the need for travel in the first instance, and maximising the shift towards

sustainable transport.

1.2.2 Of those strategies proposed, the following have been taken forward for examination within

this study:

Bus Strategy (Chapter 2)

1.2.3 The bus based strategy assesses the most efficient linkage and penetration within and

adjacent to the Masterplan area to maximise the opportunity for all residents, visitors and

workers to use the bus with particular reference to connection with the rail/tube network.

1.2.4 It also assesses the deliverability of the step-change in bus service delivery, sought by the

WMTSR study recommendations, that is, bus service provision and ridership improvements

over and above those measures outlined and implied within the Masterplan. The study

examines the potential for; further bus priority measures, high frequency bus services and

service planning and provision based on identified key local and strategic destinations.

Travel Demand Strategy (Chapter 3)

1.2.5 This sub-strategy reviews, assesses and proposes a variety of TDM interventions designed to

reduce the need for travel and enhance travel by non-car modes.

1.2.6 It assesses the scope and reach of existing and emerging Travel Demand Management

measures as they apply to the Masterplan area, such as travel planning, personalised travel

planning, area based travel planning, car clubs and car sharing, travel opportunity

information, school and community transport, flexible working hours, home working and car

clubs. It draws on published research and our own experience as active practitioners in this

field to assess the applicability and likely contribution of these measures in reducing the

need to travel and promoting travel mode shift to non-car modes.

1.2.7 In this report we examine each of the three key sub-strategy components in turn, though

each study work stream was progressed in parallel, with the findings of one part of the study

feeding the others and vice-versa. This iterative approach ensured development of a holistic

transport strategy paving the way for preparation of the Comparative Report.

1.3 Sub-strategy application and mode shift

Travel demand forecasting (Chapter 5)

1.3.1 A revised Transport Assessment model synthesises the findings of the bus strategy and TDM

interventions and provides the context for determining the deliverability of the Masterplan.

1 Introduction


Western Highway Corridor (Chapter 6);

1.3.2 Taking into consideration the strategy documents, this sub-strategy is founded on a technical

review of the layout and operation of the Western Highway Corridor comprising Wembley Hill

Road/ Empire Way/ Bridge Road and all junctions, existing and proposed, including the

terminating junctions at Wembley Triangle and at Forty Lane.

1.3.3 The review, in the context of the emerging Wembley Masterplan and other committed and

proposed highway and traffic management improvements, takes into consideration the needs

of all road users, the availability of land and the quality of the public realm, identifying an

‘optimum’ set of corridor improvements consistent with the aspirations of the Masterplan and

other local plans. Those preliminary designs are tested in terms of their operation and

performance with the overall corridor network performance taken forward for consideration

alongside the needs and performance of the other two sub-strategies,

1.4 Comparative Report and Masterplan Delivery

1.4.1 Chapter 6 considers the optimum package of bus and TDM interventions and their required

nature, scope and scale to deliver the Masterplan and its related movement.

1.4.2 It also considers relevant compatibilities and tensions between the various interventions

through use of an assessment framework to derive the optimum package for accommodating

the additional Masterplan related movement without compromising wider Masterplan

objectives.

1.4.3 However, a truly integrated transport strategy needs to be viewed and developed as an

intrinsic part of any ongoing Masterplanning process. An iterative approach is needed

whereby outputs from the transport analysis are fed back into the design process to inform

decisions on scale, access, parking provision, public transport accessibility, and street

hierarchy and so on. Such an approach is more likely to produce an optimum solution that

will withstand scrutiny further downstream in the planning process. This further study

provides not only the necessary guidance on the transport measures necessary to deliver the

Masterplan in its fullest sense, but also assists in the further Masterplan iterative design and

development process.


2 Bus Strategy

2.1.1 The earlier WMTSR study found bus service provision in the Masterplan area to be generally

strong with many services offered, good coverage and sufficient service frequencies.

However, suggested that a step-change in service provision and ridership may be needed in

order to avoid reliance on the car for access in catering for Masterplan development related

movement. A strengthening of bus improvement interventions and incentives was needed

beyond those outlined in the Masterplan.

2.1.2 The bus improvements proposed were limited to re-routing and general upgrades to the

facilities, with emphasis on infrastructure schemes. In addition, it set in place a revised

roadway network to improve vehicular movement. Those reconfigurations were to also play a

role in bus operations at each stage of development, such as the revision of a two-way

system for Forth Road and Central Way, the introduction of a diagonal Boulevard through the

site, and the reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road.

2.1.3 Building upon the Masterplan and strategic connectivity aims, a more proactive and cohesive

bus strategy has been developed and is presented in this Chapter. The strategy addresses:

Background demand and accessibility;

Measures to introduce a step change towards greater utilisation of bus transport;

Future accessibility; and

Associated costs and implementation of strategy incentives proposed.

2.1.4 The strategy strives to go beyond established infrastructure measures to improve services,

to also present a compelling case for the role of bus within the new development area.

Given the site geography and proximity to central London, the bus should offer an attractive,

convenient and competitive transport mode compared to the car and one which actively

encourages sustainable travel mode shift.

2.2 Existing situation

Bus operations and accessibility

2.2.1 The area is currently well served by buses, with five routes operating within close proximity

to the site, three routes in the peripheral area (approximately 5-10 minutes walking

distance), and four routes serving the site more remotely (approximately 10-15 minutes

walking distance). Only two routes currently penetrate the development site (Routes 92 and

PR2), which operate in the south east industrial district and along Engineers Lane and Fulton

Road, respectively.

2.2.2 Figures 2.1 and 2.2 present the bus routes serving Wembley Park and Wembley Stadium

respectively. Table 2.1 summarises each bus route, frequency, and centres served.

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.1 Bus services to Wembley Park

Figure 2.2 Bus services to Wembley Central

2 Bus Strategy


Table 2-1 Bus routes frequency and destinations

Frequency

(mins) Local and neighbouring centres served

Wee

kday

Sunday

Eve

nin

g

SE B

rent

E B

rent

N C

entr

al B

rent

N B

rent

S C

entr

al B

rent

Alp

erto

n

Wem

ble

y Cen

tral

W B

rent

N E

alin

g

Cen

tral

Eal

ing

E E

alin

g

W E

alin

g

Bar

net

Har

row

Direct

83 8 12 15 X X X X X X X X X

92 8 10 10 X X X X X X X

182 8 12 12 X X X X

PR2 30 -- 30 X X X X

224 15 30 30 X X X X

Periphery

18 5 8 8 X X X X

223 20 30 30 X X X X X

297 10 12 12 X X X X X X

Remote

79 12 15 15 X X X X X

204 10 15 15 X X X X X X

245 8 12 12 X X X X X

H17 15 20 20 X X X

2.2.3 The level of service frequency is a key factor in characterising the level of public transport

service available. The accepted threshold for an attractive and convenient bus service is the

operation of five buses an hour, and during the weekday peak periods, eight of the routes

operate more than that. However, routes 223, 224, H17, and PR2 operate at a lower

frequency, with routes 223 and PR2 operating at headways of 20 and 30 minutes,

respectively. Additionally, routes 223 and 224 operate at 30 minute headways during late

evenings and the weekends.

2.2.4 A further consideration is the destinations served along a given bus route. Given that the

average bus trip length a passenger takes in London is approximately 3km, the local centres

and major regional and employment centres within this radius were examined for each bus

route. The main regional employment/commercial centres in Brent include:

Southeast Brent: Willesden and Willesden Green;

East Brent: Neasden, Dollis Hill, parts of Brent Cross

2 Bus Strategy


North Central Brent: Kingsbury, Preston

North Brent: Kenton, Northwick Park

South Central Brent: Ealing Road, Harlesden

Alperton;

Wembley Central;

West Brent: North Wembley

2.2.5 Our examination found the majority of direct routes to/from the site serve each local centres,

with the exception of north central Brent which is only served by bus routes that are more

remote from the Masterplan area.

2.2.6 Figures 2.3 to 2.6 depict the existing bus travel times to/from the Wembley site during the

AM and PM periods. The maps were generated using Accession software to assess the

transport accessibility levels across the borough. The bus travel time includes the time

required to walk to a stop and waiting time at the stop.

Figure 2.3 Existing AM Bus travel times (inbound)

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.4 Existing AM Bus travel times (Outbound)

Figure 2.5 Existing PM Bus travel times (inbound)

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.6 Existing PM Bus travel times (outbound)

2.2.7 As apparent from Figures 2.3 to 2.6, few barriers limit bus movement to/from the site within

3km, with many important local destinations reached within a travel time of less than 30

minutes.

2.2.8 The red shading indicates areas requiring a greater travel time due to indirect services

to/from the site and/or poor frequencies on the route(s). Those areas with a more

disproportionate travel time include:

North Brent (local centres of Kenton, Northwick Park);

North Central Brent (local centre of Kingsbury); and

South Central Brent (local centre of Harlesden);

Alperton.

Stopping and interchange facilities

2.2.9 Another important factor in bus service attractiveness is the quality of the stopping and

interchange facilities available. Although interchange between two buses occurs less often

than from bus to another mode (eg rail), it is important to encourage inter-modal transfer

and providing appropriate facilities. In addition, given the location of the site situated

between two rail stations, it is important that bus interchange within the Masterplan area is

convenient thereby encouraging further subsequent interchange at those stations.

2.2.10 The Masterplan promotes the concept of the Three Stations Strategy which provides

opportunities for interchange with rail and underground stations within proximity to the site.

The interchange possible at these stations is summarised in Table 2.2 below:

2 Bus Strategy


Table 2-2 Interchanges available at stations

Station Interchange Routes served

Wembley Stadium Rail 18, 83, 92, 182

Wembley Central Underground 18, 79, 83, 92, 182, 204, 223, 224, 297, H17

Wembley Park Underground 83, 92, 182, 223, 224, 245, 297, PR2

2.2.11 Currently, little in the way of bus interchange facilities are offered at each station.

Wembley Central, approximately 15-20 minutes walk from the centre of the site, provides

minimal shelters which is often overcrowded by high footway volumes. Figure 2.7 illustrates

the current interchange setting.

Figure 2.7 Existing Wembley Central Interchange Facilities

2.2.12 Only a few minutes walk to the centre of the site, Wembley Stadium station is an ideal

interchange gateway to the development site. Although recent upgrades to the rail station

have been significant, bus infrastructure improvements to accommodate increased volumes

have yet to be realised. Both the northbound and southbound stops along Empire Way do

not offer a sufficiently convenient transfer from bus to rail and lack appropriate crossing

facilities.

2.2.13 At the north-west section of the Masterplan area, Wembley Park underground station has

been subject to significant recent upgrades. This work included enhancing the northbound

bus facilities, notably shelter improvements. However, few upgrades have been made to the

southbound stop. In particular, southbound bus passengers wishing to interchange to the

tube would benefit from Bridge Road crossing facilities in order to gain access to the station

at the elevated entrance (Figure 2.8).

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.8 Existing Wembley Park Interchange facilities

2.2.14 Within the Masterplan area, stopping facilities are generally inadequate, often lacking shelter

and real time information. This is the case nearly all stops along Route 92 and PR2 within

the development area (Figure 2.9). The lack of consistent bus stop layouts and shelter

provisions does not, currently, make the bus mode an attractive option.

Figure 2.9 Existing stopping facilities in industrial area

Background demand and capacity

2.2.15 The source of current demand was examined to assess if capacity constraints exist on the

routes serving the Wembley area. Bus demand was estimated from Bus Origin Destination

Surveys (BODS) provided by London Buses using the most recent data collected for the area

is from 2002. The annual average growth rate applied, 1%, was based on 3G (Third

Generation) Bus Priority. This is a conservative estimate, as the growth rate is potentially

2 Bus Strategy


higher given the recent construction of Wembley stadium and that BODS loadings often

present lower levels of ridership than found in reality.

2.2.16 Overall the volumes to/from the areas in South Central Brent, Wembley Central, and West

Brent are the greatest, with few passengers going to Ealing and destinations beyond Barnet

and Harrow. Passenger distributions are presented in Table 2.3.

Table 2-3 Existing passenger distributions

AM PM

In Out In Out

SE Brent 8.2% 4.7% 3.4% 6.3%

E Brent 6.3% 7.7% 8.8% 8.1%

N Central Brent 1.9% 3.7% 2.7% 1.8%

N Brent 6.3% 8.6% 8.8% 6.6%

S Central Brent 18.1% 17.4% 16.7% 17.3%

Alperton 5.5% 7.5% 7.1% 4.9%

Wembley Central 18.1% 17.7% 16.4% 17.2%

W Brent 12.6% 10.2% 9.3% 12.3%

N Ealing 1.4% 1.2% 1.6% 1.2%

Central Ealing 3.6% 4.6% 5.1% 4.0%

E Ealing 1.0% 1.2% 2.6% 1.5%

W Ealing 2.4% 2.3% 4.2% 2.7%

Barnet 4.1% 5.5% 7.5% 6.4%

Harrow 3.2% 3.6% 3.9% 4.4%

Other 7.3% 4.1% 2.0% 5.4%

2.2.17 Residual capacity was then assessed by taking the highest observed loading within 3km of

the site during the AM and PM peak period, and applying a single-decker bus capacity of 45

passengers and the double-decker bus capacity of 65 passengers. Any known upgrades to

the fleet were included in the analysis. The resultant 2008 spare capacity by route is

presented in Table 2.4.

2 Bus Strategy


Table 2-4 2008 Spare capacity by route

Bus Route AM PM

In Out In Out

18 63.3% 75.1% 84.6% 69.4%

79 68.3% 57.0% 72.2% 74.7%

83 68.7% 62.7% 37.9% 62.4%

92 65.4% 78.5% 81.3% 76.2%

182 46.6% 43.1% 54.7% 11.8%

204 83.7% 57.9% 73.3% 69.3%

223 70.1% 82.3% 65.8% 72.9%

224 77.0% 83.5% 77.6% 87.6%

297 34.4% 36.5% 59.4% 40.6%

H17 94.7% 92.3% 97.6% 93.5%

PR2 84.7% 95.3% 82.3% 83.5%

Overall 64.4% 65.2% 69.4% 64.3%

2.2.18 Overall, approximately one-third of the capacity available is currently being utilised, although

observations indicate that Routes 182 and 297 are operating at or near capacity. Routes 182

and 297 operate at the highest levels of capacity for the area, nearly 88.2% of capacity is

utilised for Route 182 in the PM peak, while Route 297 operates at 65.6% of capacity in the

AM peak. Route H17 and PR2 provide substantial spare capacity, 97.6% (PM) and 95.3%

(AM), respectively.

2.3 Bus strategy incentives

2.3.1 In order to realise increased modal share, bus must be considered a reliable and convenient

alternative to the car. These factors are very important for potential riders but may be

difficult to specify in terms of operations and infrastructure provision. From our investigation

of current service provision and in recognition of the nature and needs of the Masterplan,

the following are guiding principles for a substantial improvement in bus service provision in

and around the Masterplan area:

a legible route network;

high standard of interchange opportunities between buses and other modes;

a high quality of service; and

2 Bus Strategy


bus priority measures.

2.3.2 The first two components offer the necessary routeing and provision to establish the

network; and the latter two promote and advance the bus as an attractive option relative to

the car.

Figure 2.10 Proposed routeing through site

Legible route network

2.3.3 The simplicity and directness of the route network is important when trying to attract new

passengers, as is the maintenance, where possible, the same core network at all times of

day and day of week. More intuitive stop locations, that is, generally alighting at a similar

point on the route to boarding, can be located in the Masterplan area assuming appropriate

road network provision is made in terms of road geometry.

2.3.4 The proposed network presented in Figure 2.10 above, provides two complementary routes

operating within each Masterplan zone connecting to interchange opportunities at either

Wembley Park, Wembley Stadium, or Wembley Central, as follows:

Development core (southeast portion of site) served by routes 92 and 224;

Existing industrial district (southwest portion of site) served by routes 92 and PR2; and

Business and shopping zone (north portion of site) served by routes PR2 and 224.

2.3.5 The network introduced does not include the direct, limited stop service proposed to run

between Park Royal and Wembley Park. Upon approval and funding of this route, the route

should run along Empire Way on the Western Highway corridor to preserve the pedestrian

2 Bus Strategy


environment of the boulevard route, as this will be operated by the extension of the 224. The

improvement along the PR2 (which also runs between Park Royal and Wembley Park) is

advised to serve the industrial district of the site.

2.3.6 Route 92 should be diverted along the Boulevard and continue along Engineers Way.

Assumingreversion to a two-way system, Route 92 should then continue along First Way into

the industrial district of the site. This route will conveniently connect residents and workers

to Wembley Central and Wembley Stadium stations.

Figure 2.11 Wembley Masterplan 2008 proposed bus routes

2.3.7 The proposed re-routing of the PR2 bus operation will serve the industrial area and connect

North End Road via Fulton Road. The route should then be extended beyond the Paddocks

(existing terminus) and provide a link to North Central Brent, approximately one mile in

distance, connecting the site with the area surrounding Kingsbury station. This area is

currently poorly served and will be the origin/destination of 7% of all the trips generated by

the development. In addition, this diversion and extension will connect a number of business

parks and the College of North West London to the opportunity area located at Park Royal.

2.3.8 The extension of Route 224 will provide a convenient connection to those within the

development site to Wembley Park station. This will complement the high frequency routes

running along Empire Way and will operate in a parallel manner serving additional

destinations on site to promote accessibility. Within the site the 224 will run along the

Boulevard and then the shopping street, or, optionally via Olympic Way (not shown). The

route extension to Wembley Park station is feasible given its current route length and

journey time. A potential terminus location for Route 224 is at the Wembley Park ASDA on

Forty Lane, though discussions and investigations would be required to verify this possibility.

2.3.9 The proposed route structure is in line with that envisioned in the Masterplan, routes PR2

and 92 have been modified to facilitate intuitive stop locations, that is, alighting at a location

opposite to that used for boarding. This necessitates changing operation of the present one-

2 Bus Strategy


way system to two-way in the industrial estate area and would require alteration of the road

geometry along the lines of that proposed within the Wembley Industrial Estates

Regeneration Study (WIERS) of 2004. Additionally, a shuttle bus service could be introduced

to serve the industrial and business destinations of the site, potentially serving Second or

Third Way. Such a service would provide for the arrival and departure peak hour movements

to and from the area without the related higher scale of operational cost associated with

provision of a permanent off-peak service.

2.3.10 Discussed above, the implementation of a direct, limited stop service should serve run along

the Western Highway corridor, thereby minimising the number of buses running through the

pedestrian environment of the development site. Similarly, route 182 should remain on that

corridor as diversion within the site is not anticipated to increase ridership or expand the

catchment area substantially.

Interchange Facilities

2.3.11 Wembley Central, Wembley Stadium, and Wembley Park station part of the Three Stations

concept outlined in the Masterplan. In building upon the existing strategy, we propose that

these stations should be considered and designated public transport hubs, providing a

conscious point of arrival promoting the high quality of public transport service available.

They should act as a gateway providing real time information, adequate seating and lighting,

and cycle facilities. Moreover they should act as intuitive and convenient transfer locations,

with road crossings by pedestrians kept to a minimum.

2.3.12 The major Wembley Central Square shopping centre scheme and station upgrade is

currently under construction and will include needed improvements to the Wembley High

Road footway width to accommodate increasing pedestrian volumes at nearby bus stops. In

addition the provision of real time bus service information would be beneficial. A road

crossing facility along the High Road near Wembley Central station would benefit eastbound

bus passengers wishing to interchange with the underground.

2.3.13 Given Wembley Stadium station’s proximity to the core of the development area, it should

be seen as a primary gateway to the development. The current configuration does not

facilitate large passenger volumes, nor does it attract users to interchange between rail and

bus. Improvements identified near the station comprise:

Southbound bus interchange facilities would ideally be situated adjacent to the rail

station in the southwest corner of the junction between Empire Way and South Way

(Figure 2.12). The area is currently undeveloped and provides easy access to the rail

station and could facilitate interchange opportunities and establish a gateway. Other

provision, such as seating, real time information, shelter, and cycle racks could be

provided;

Given the roadway and bridge constraints, the northbound bus stop cannot be

relocated within greater proximity to the station. The bus stop should be upgraded

and signal timings revised to accommodate an all green pedestrian phase to avoid a

two-stage crossing. If possible, the northbound bus stop would also benefit from

similar branding to the station and stadium architecture.

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.12 Potential locations for Southbound bus facilities

2.3.14 Although there have been recent improvements to Wembley Park station, it would benefit

from further improvement measures:

Increase available seating at the station for northbound services,

To gain waiting room, especially during event days, the existing cycle rack should be

relocated to a more convenient location;

The southbound bus shelter should be upgraded to reflect the architecture of Wembley

Park station including the northbound bus shelter, and Wembley stadium.

A signalised crossing facility that connects the southbound bus stop to the elevated

entrance to the station.

Quality of Service

2.3.15 Routing and interchange facilities provide the necessary infrastructure, but in order to fully

realise bus service potential, the bus must be demonstrated as offering a high quality and

reliable form of transport, through high levels of service, information provision, and

appropriate Wembley service/route/fleet branding.

2.3.16 Service frequency is a key defining characteristic of service quality. According to Transport

Research Laboratory, the threshold for behaviour change occurs at 4-5 scheduled journeys

per hour. Routes with low frequency typically demonstrate greater ridership elasticity than

that for high frequency services. Therefore, even if passenger volumes do not initially justify

the increased service, the convenience and reliability make it a more attractive option for

potential riders. The following frequency increases are recommended:

Frequency of PR2 should be increased from present 30 minute headways to 12 minute

headways;

Frequency of 224 should be increased from present 15 minute headways to 10 minute

headways.

Frequency of 223 should be increased from present 20 minute headways to 12 minute

headways.

2.3.17 In addition frequency modifications can be a tool to increase capacity on a given route. It

can also improve reliability, as dwell times can be reduced slightly. We propose the following

modifications to increase capacity on the routes 297 and 182:

Frequency of 297 should be increased from 10 minute headways to 8 minute

headways to provide additional capacity.

2 Bus Strategy


Frequency of 182 should be increased from 8 minute headways to 6 minute headways.

2.3.18 These frequency increases are considered feasible given the current and proposed route

length and journey times. Further investigations may be necessary to review terminus point

facilities and driver turnover.

2.3.19 Information regarding buses must be simple and readily available, including both the

information available before a passenger goes to his or her neighbourhood stop and that

available at the stop. TfL London Buses already provides excellent information at most

Central London and district centre stops and this needs to be extended to the Wembley

Masterplan area. Without sufficient information, passengers may not be able to select

appropriate services suiting their needs, contributing to poor service perception, thereby

suppressing bus use.

2.3.20 In addition to standard timetable distribution, an area guide bus map and real time

information should be available at stations and centres of public activity.

2.3.21 An area guide bus map should be provided. The site is located between Wembley Central

and Wembley Park stations, each with separate bus maps. In practice, these maps can

provide confusing stop location and interchange information. With the revised and simplified

route structure, the information provided should be simplified and clearer, perhaps providing

walking distances and bus frequencies. The area bus map should be provided at various

points throughout the development area.

Real time information should be presented both on electronic displays at the bus stops,

but also at centres of public activity (such as Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena, etc.),

similar to Figure 2.13. Information should also be available via the Internet on existing TfL

sites and, perhaps, on a Wembley centric site.

Figure 2.13 Existing Real Time Information at NB Wembley Park bus stop

2.3.22 The Branding of Wembley bus services would enhance the perception that its buses are

unique and of a bespoke quality. This is best accomplished through constructing shelters to

a uniform design standard with appropriate information and advertising provision. Figure

2.14 presents the architectural style of recent construction in the area and the influence of

Wembley Stadium’s architecture on bus stop facilities at the northbound bus stop outside

Wembley Park station. For those within the newly developed area, this design concept could

reiterate the architectural influence of Wembley Stadium. Similarly the shelters within the

industrial district should be of high quality in order to entice workers to see buses as a

worthwhile alternative to the car.

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.14 Architectural branding potential for bus stops

Bus priority measures

2.3.23 The proposed bus operational and passenger facility improvements are vital for establishing

the right conditions for a ‘step change’ in public transport usage. However, to overcome the

resistance of those habitual car users for whom the bus may represent a realistic travel

alternative, it is necessary to introduce sanctions to counteract this inertia. The simplest and

most effective method is on street and workplace parking charges with effective

enforcement. This is most applicable in the industrial district and in areas of new

construction. The following measures should be introduced alongside the strategic incentives

discussed above.

2.3.24 Bus (priority) lanes are important in affording appropriate priority to buses on the highway

network, avoiding variable levels of congestion and managing the impact of car use on bus

movement. Priority lanes along Empire Way/Bridge Way should be extended.

2.3.25 Wherever possible, bus selective vehicle detection (SVD) at signals, which minimises

delay to bus movement and helps to improve service reliability and minimise journey times,

should be installed.

2.3.26 The feasibility of these measures is addressed in the proposed corridor and junction layouts

discussed in Chapter 5.

2.4 Future demand and capacity considerations

Future demand distribution and accessibility

2.4.1 With the change of land uses within the development site the numbers of passenger trips

made will change accordingly, attracting journeys to and from different areas. Table 2.5

presents the future demand distribution. Table 2.5 presents the future demand distribution.

South Central Brent will continue to be a major origin and destination for trips to/from the

site. In addition, the demand to/from areas to the north (Kingsbury and Kenton areas) and

2 Bus Strategy


the south east (Willesden, Harlesden areas) of the site will increase as with the new

development and improved connections to those areas.

Table 2-5 Future demand distribution (to be revised with TAM output)

AM PM

In Out In Out

SE Brent 4.5% 3.8% 6.1% 6.3%

E Brent 4.4% 3.3% 5.4% 5.9%

N Central Brent 6.4% 6.1% 9.7% 9.2%

N Brent 7.5% 7.5% 11.8% 11.0%

S Central Brent 39.2% 45.7% 13.7% 16.6%

Alperton 5.0% 3.8% 6.2% 6.7%

Wembley Central 8.2% 6.5% 10.5% 10.9%

W Brent 6.0% 5.0% 8.1% 8.0%

N Ealing 5.1% 3.8% 6.2% 6.5%

Central Ealing 5.3% 5.2% 8.0% 7.1%

E Ealing 2.7% 2.4% 3.8% 3.4%

W Ealing 1.7% 1.9% 2.9% 2.4%

Barnet 2.5% 2.9% 4.4% 3.6%

Harrow 1.4% 2.1% 3.2% 2.3%

Other 4.5% 3.8% 6.1% 6.3%

2.4.2 The proposed bus strategy is designed to satisfy the future demand distribution. Figures

2.15-2.18 present the travel time savings for Brent assuming the implementation of the

transport incentives.

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.15 Improvements in travel time AM (inbound)

Figure 2.16 Improvements in travel time AM (outbound)

2 Bus Strategy


Figure 2.17 Improvements in travel time PM(inbound)

Figure 2.18 Improvements in travel time PM (outbound)

2.4.3 The most significant improvements occur to the north of the site, with enhancements to the

223, 224, and PR2 improving connections to local centres like Preston and Kingsbury with

travel times reduced by up to 10 minutes.

2 Bus Strategy


2.4.4 The residential and local centres to the south of Ealing Road and Alperton receive travel time

savings with improvements to 182 and 224.

Travel Demand Forecasting

2.4.5 The estimated impact of the bus strategy and related interventions has been taken forward

as input to the Wembley Transport Assessment Model (TAM, see Chapter 4). From the

research presented here, the bus interventions are estimated to increase the bus mode share

for internalised trips by 5% and have been offset by reducing the car mode share by 2%,

walk by 2% and cycle by 1%. Most significantly, a shift of 2.5% has been applied from car

use to bus, and to avoid double-counting of that impact only 50% of the shift associated with

the bus strategy is taken forward.

2.5 Deliverability

Cost estimates and funding sources

2.5.1 A small amount of new bus infrastructure is required to deliver the bus service improvements

as a greater emphasis to be placed on quality of public transport, The infrastructure required

surrounds interchange and stopping facilities with parking disincentives for cars. The quality

improvements encompass operations, information and branding.

2.5.2 The table below provides a broad range of cost to fulfil the bus strategy.

Table 2-6 Bus strategy cost estimates

Approximate cost

range

Route extensions and frequencies*

Route PR2 (extension, frequency and service modifications) £1m - £1.25m

Route 224 (extension, frequency modifications) £500,000 –

£750,000

Route 223 (frequency modifications) £375,000 -

£600,000

Route 182 (frequency modifications) £1m - £1.25m

Route 297 (frequency modifications) £500,000 -

£750,000

Route 92 (route diversion) No significant cost

Interchange and stopping facilities

Construct NB & SB bus stops at Wembley Central station (branding &

construction, cycle racks, real time information)

£20,000 - £40,000

Upgrade NB bus stop at Wembley Stadium Station (branding & construction of

shelter, including seating, real time information, etc)

£10,000 - £20,000

2 Bus Strategy


Construct SB bus interchange facility at Wembley Stadium Station (branding &

construction of shelter, cycle racks)

£25,000 - £60,000

+ land acquisition if

required

Upgrade NB stop at Wembley Park station (install seating, relocate bike rack) £5,000 - £10,000

Upgrade SB stop at Wembley Park station (branding & construction of shelter) £10,000 - £20,000

Enhance existing stops with real time information at 8 existing stops £7,500 - £15,000

Install 15 new stops (including real time information) £100,000 -

£125,000

Relocate 2 existing stops £10,000-£15,000

Bus Priority measures

Extend bus priority lanes along Empire Way (approx 100-200m) £5,000 - £10,000

Provide bus priority at junctions £20,000 - £50,000

* Does not include operating margins, cost contingencies, or concession company costs on a per annum

cost.

Service Changes

2.5.3 The key elements of the bus strategy are: the enhanced service frequency, route diversions

and route extensions. London Bus Services Limited will need to be convinced that the

proposals and the accompanying travel demand management (TDM) measures will deliver the

necessary revenues over the life of each bus contract. Clearly, establishment of a sound

business case will depend heavily on passenger forecasts. Funding and service changes could

be applied incrementally, adjusting to the increase in demand as construction of the

development proceeds however, to achieve a ‘step change’ in passenger perceptions of bus

based public transport, full service frequency improvements must be made as early as

possible. Estimated operational costs in Table 2.11 assume full implementation of

modifications.

Infrastructure Changes

2.5.4 Infrastructure changes can be considered in three parts: bus priority measures, passenger

facilities at stops and interchanges and enabling works for service changes. Provided that a

robust business case can be established, many of the infrastructure costs would be funded by

Transport for London. Establishment of a sound business case will depend heavily on

passenger forecasts.

2.5.5 Bus priority at junctions (SVD) is already funded for suitable sites throughout London under

the new iBUS GPS based automatic vehicle location (AVL) SVD system. TfL will include SVD at

all new suitable sites when the current programme has been completed.

2.5.6 Additional bus priority measures, such as the bus lane extension and junction improvements,

are likely to be funded through the London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) if they can be shown

to deliver the necessary economic cost/benefit ratio. Ad hoc funding from TfL may be

2 Bus Strategy


available for other specific measures that fall outside normal funding streams; this avenue has

been demonstrated to be successful in the past with the current Empire Way bus lane .

2.5.7 Funding provide or enhance the public transport interchange hubs should be available through

TfL’s area based scheme programme, including support for Station Access and Streets for

People schemes. Once again a sound business case is essential.

2.5.8 Service change enabling works (new and enhanced bus stops, bus turn-around and standing

areas) are likely to receive sympathetic support from TFL LBSL if the basic service change

business case is satisfactory.

Additional Funding

2.5.9 An important alternative to TfL financial support is developer contributions. The funds

available are addressed in the Development Agreement of September 2004. Developer

contributions may be sought as with those already secured in relation to the Stage 1 S106

Agreement (2004) which includes for a staged contribution of £1,750,000 for bus route or

other public transport measures, with mention of possible contribution towards subsidising

the provision of bus routes or other measures. Note was also made of works to the value of

£50,000 resulting from an approved bus infrastructure strategy. There is also provision for a

contribution of £100,000 towards improvement works at Wembley Central Station, along

with a contribution of £1,615,000 to Transport for London for Wembley Park Station

improvement works.

2.5.10 Developer funding could therefore be used to provide architecturally compatible stop and

interchange facilities and support for service changes that are directly affected by the

development.

2.6 Conclusions

2.6.1 This strategy attempts to transform the broad measures imagined in the Masterplan into

realisable and substantial interventions resulting in a substantial modal shift towards bus

use:

Legible network;

Convenient and appealing transfers;

High level of service and frequency; and

Bus priority measures.

2.6.2 Although these incentives can be implemented over the course of the development, a

coherent vision must be defined in order to deliver this strategy, for example, increased

frequencies require enhanced interchange facilities and bus priority, and so forth. Moreover,

this strategy fits within the constraints of the existing and proposed highway network and

sets up the capacity and facilities needed to accommodate the development and travel

demand measures.

2.6.3 The proposed bus strategy incentives are capable of implementation over the Masterplan

period. The funding obligations for the infrastructure works are considered manageable,

given the existing established network and ridership. In addition, developer contributions are

available including £1,750,000 towards bus routing and other public transport measures,

2 Bus Strategy


£50,000 towards bus infrastructure strategy, and £1,715,000 to improve interchange

facilities at Wembley Central and Wembley Park stations.

2.6.4 In order to fully achieve the vision set out in this document, active engagement with

Transport for London, London buses and the surrounding community is required to transform

the strategy measures listed into realisable interventions. It is worth reiterating that the

travel demand measures and the bus strategy itself hinges upon gaining TfL LBSL support for

the proposed service frequency improvements.

Next steps

2.6.5 Successful implementation of the bus strategy is vital to the success of the Wembley

Masterplan area and needs to be progressed with a minimum of delay. Engagement with TfL

London Buses should be undertaken when the partners have agreed the bases of the

strategy. A clear business case should be established and the outcomes for London buses

set out with practical, achievable and implementable supporting infrastructure schemes.

2.6.6 The aim of the process is take sound proposals to TfL London Buses if the bus strategy is to

be achieved. The following steps need to be undertaken rigorously and fully to secure

credibility, and ultimately funding, for the proposals:

Calculate realistic bus patronage levels for each route enhancement at key

development milestones;

Estimate revenue for each milestone;

Carry out practical feasibility designs for each of the proposed route service changes;

Estimate minimum and desirable infrastructure costs;

Calculate both economic benefits and residual revenues (these may be positive or

negative in the early stages);

Prepare a draft travel demand management commitment by stakeholders; and

Take clearly argued proposals to TfL London Buses

2.6.7 If TfL London Buses are able to endorse the proposals then:

Develop a delivery timetable;

Develop and funding programme; and

Initiate detailed design and implementation.

2.6.8 Once TfL support has been secured for the increased service frequencies all other bus

enhancements may be progressed.


3 Travel Demand Management Strategy

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 In this chapter we consider the effect that Travel Demand Management Interventions, or

‘Smarter Travel’ can have on overall traffic levels in a mixed-use development. This will focus

on designing-in Smarter Travel to the Masterplan development at a very early stage.

Reducing the need to travel prior to occupation of the site, takes full advantage of the

‘Change Opportunity’ that exists when relocation occurs.

3.2 Background

Context of the Study

3.2.1 TDM measures are in their infancy, in development terms, with their longevity and efficiency

yet to be proven. However, several of those initiatives, such as travel planning and car

sharing are in widespread use and a knowledge base of associated methods and performance

is building over time. We shall draw upon published research and our own experience as

active practitioners in this field to assess the applicability and likely contribution of these

measures in reducing the need to travel and promoting travel mode shift to non-car modes.

Area of Development

3.2.2 London as a whole is a hotbed of Smarter Travel Activities and is home to much of the UK

best practise. There are well established and proven Smarter Travel programmes operated

by Transport for London (TfL) and the boroughs with rigorous and tested monitoring

regimes. Many of these programmes have shown significant mode shift results on mass

scales not before seen in the UK. TfL, the London Sub Regional Partnerships and Boroughs all

provide support to organisations undertaking these activities.

3.2.3 The WESTRANS sub region is a well resourced body with an excellent reputation which

include the development of the award winning iTRACE monitoring system. West London

boroughs generally outperform most other London boroughs and sub regions in terms of

both Workplace and School Travel Planning. The results from the iTRACE database show the

West London average mode shift reduction in single car occupancy, for Workplace Travel

Planning is higher than the London average by more than 5% and more than 2% for schools.

The West London sub region also boasts the London Borough with the largest percentage

reduction in workplace travel by car and the Borough with the second largest reduction for

car travel to school.

3.2.4 These factors combine to indicate that the location and the surrounding area is a well

established area for the use of Smarter Travel and that the support and surrounding good

practise supports the concept that from a point of view of location the development should

be ideally situated for creating mode shift in excess of the London average for Smarter

Travel interventions.



Services and the Built Environment

3.2.5 The development will be a new build site, which provides the opportunity to build in

measures and services that create a sustainable environment, making it easier for the site’s

population to make more sustainable travel choices. If measures such as good public

transport services to interchanges and good pedestrian and cycling facilities are built into the

site prior to occupation it will allow the Smarter Travel measures that are implemented from

point of occupation to take full advantage of the ‘Change Opportunity’ and further ratchet the

likelihood of success, as well as increase the percentage of modal shift away from the car

journey that can be achieved.

The Change Opportunity

3.2.6 The Change Opportunity is a psychological theory that is used in all behaviour change

programmes. When individuals are going through a process of intense psychological change

such as: moving house, relocation of workplace or a new job, they are more open to the

possibility of changing other aspects of their behaviour such as travel. This principle means

that the entire population of the Wembley Masterplan in theory should be more predisposed

to change. It is worth pointing out that no population can be changed away form car

journeys 100%, merely that to those where alternatives are a practical possibility, the

likelihood of them considering change, as part of their wider life change is increased. This will

be particularly relevant if the infrastructure and passenger transport services support and

encourage this change, from a push and pull (carrot and stick) perspective.

Designing in Advantage (Carrot)

3.2.7 If the very highest levels of sustainable travel and mode shift are to be achieved it is

imperative that the advantage of sustainable transport is not only built into the development

but is overtly visible. This allows these measures to act as a reminder to those who have

made the choice to travel by sustainable mode that they are valued and have a visible

advantage. It also acts as an advertising and reinforcement mechanism to those still using

non sustainable modes that there may be a better option.

3.2.8 Good examples of Carrot infrastructure and service methods that could be designed into the

site and used in the context of infrastructure to support wider Smarter Travel initiatives

include; highly visible car share and car club logos on street signage and at the entrances to

the site, clearly marked and enforced dedicated bays for car sharing, car club cars that are

located in the most advantageous and desirable positions for car parking., and clearly

advertised, well positioned public transport interchanges with attractively designed and lit

shelters. This would ideally be supported by a bus service that is connected to other

desirable public transport interchanges with a reliable service, as discussed in the previous

chapter. Also desirable is well designed cycle infrastructure with covered and lit cycle parking

built into the development, at regular points in the site in close proximity to likely desired

destinations (TfL provide detailed standards for cycle parking and infrastructure). Lastly,

good pedestrian infrastructure that takes into account the likely desire lines of users will

encourage purposeful walking.



Restricting Car Usage

3.2.9 One essential infrastructural element of highly successful Smarter Travel is restricted parking

for private single occupancy vehicles and a well managed parking policy that provides a

hierarchy of car parking solutions. This ideally would be based on promoting the use of pool

cars, car sharing and car clubs. If parking is left unchecked or single occupancy private

vehicles are allocated limits, these limits will in almost all cases be met. Few developments

can expect to have a lower car usage percentage than the unrestricted private parking

allows. Full scoping of the infrastructural parking management requirements is beyond the

present scope of this study.

Land Use in the Wembley Development

3.2.10 The Land Use for the new Wembley Development can be broken down into the following

usages highlighted in the table below:

Table 3-1 Applicable measure by land use

SQM / Units Land

Usage

Estimated

Population

Likely applicable Measures

364540 sq m

Employment

\ Business

11654 persons

employed

Workplace Travel Plans, Smarter

Travel, Car Sharing,Off-Peak Servicing,

Area Based Travel Planning, Car Clubs,

Real Time Publicity

27542 sq m Educational 2,020 potential

children

one secondary

school and one

or two primary

schools to be

built

School Travel Plans, Car Sharing,

Personal Travel Planning, Area Based

Travel Planning, Real Time Publicity,

Car Free Development

7720 units Residential 18,528

additional

residents

Based on:

2.4 resident per

unit

Personal Travel Planning, Area Based

Travel Planning, Car Clubs, Cycle Hire,

Real Time Publicity, Car Free,

development , Home Delivery, Taxi Hire

3.2.11 Throughout the Masterplan, a number of TDM measures are mentioned including travel

plans, car clubs, parking strategies and travel awareness campaigns. The document also

states that reducing the need to travel by focusing the population in an area with good public

transport and providing the necessary range of facilities and amenities to allow people to

work, live and play within the local area was an important consideration within the

development. The Masterplan also mentions promoting the development of the public

transport system as a primary mode of transport for new residents while also promoting car



clubs using a travel awareness campaign. The use of a parking strategy and Travel Plans

was included in the Masterplan l. While these TDM measures are mentioned with the

Masterplan there is a general lack of detail regarding exactly what the measures will involve

so it is very difficult to predict in a robust manner quite what effect they would have. To this

end, we have explored the likely effective measures based on best practise and available

evidence.

Timescales for Smarter Travel

3.2.12 The timescale for any Smarter Travel initiative from implementation to audited results of

long term behaviour change is typically between two to five years. This timescale includes

from original project concept to seeing first audited results, and then demonstrating long

term behaviour change.

3.2.13 Smarter Travel can generally be divided into two major approaches Business to Business

(B2B) and Business to Consumer (B2C).

3.2.14 B2B is a relationship where the authority of an intermediary trusted source \ organisation is

used to contact and influence a group of people, e.g. School or Workplace. These can often

take longer periods of time to establish desired behaviour but they can be highly effective

and cost efficient, due to the amount of effort involved in communicating with many people

via one source and the ease in which reinforcement through continued contact can be done.

3.2.15 B2C is a direct relationship with the end user, via direct contact or marketing. This can be

less effective as there are perceived vested interests of the authority providing the message

e.g. Local Authority. These techniques such as Travel Awareness, Advertising and Personal

Travel Planning are often more expensive; however they can often have a more immediate

effect.

3.2.16 In the case of a new development elements of these timescales can be brought forward if

through good planning the site has good public transport and pedestrian infrastructure in

place at point of occupation and that negotiation with developers and occupiers has taken

place well in advance to allow for the pre-planning of travel plan measure to be implemented

prior to occupancy of the site.

3.2.17 For instance if all site Workplaces and Schools were expected to have operating travel plans

in place within 3 months of occupancy and all residents provided with Personal Travel

Planning (PTP) prior to occupancy, this would take full advantage of the ‘Change Opportunity’

and could speed up the process. However, this would also rely on all pedestrian and

passenger transport services within the site and beyond to be in place by occupancy. If this

approach is taken it is possible that change could be created almost instantly and that the

early effects of this could be seen within one year. The more likely outcome with a staged

development such as this is likely to be that staged smarter travel and sustainable

infrastructure support will be implemented in sections. As a result of this the outcomes of

these are likely to also take longer to produce. In this case the three to five year scenario, is

likely to stand with full adoption of sustainable behaviour and its cumulative effect not

plateauing until at least two years after final occupancy of the site.



3.2.18 Below is an example of a typical Smarter Travel timeline based on the TfL Corporate

workplace travel planning process.

Figure 3.1 Workplace travel plans, time scales

3.3 Smarter Travel Research and Evidence Base

3.3.1 Best practise materials have provided us with guidance to determine the level to which

infrastructure can increase use of sustainable modes. We have looked into what evidence

currently exists for the wider social benefits that can be gained from cycling and walking. For

the main bulk of this evidence we will be rely on published TfL’s and Cycling England’s

figures and best practise, but have approached TfL’s cycling and walking section to

understand if any additional statistics are available. We have also compared the

infrastructure approach to the ‘Invisible Infrastructure’ approach, originally outlined by the

English Regions Cycle Development Team.

3.3.2 Through the gathered information we have assessed the applicability of the following travel

demand techniques:

Personalised travel planning;

Area Based Travel Planning;

Car Clubs;

Workplace Travel Plans, Typical Time Scales Based on TfL Corporate Programme for Organisation of more than 250 employees

Phase 1: Consultative selling (2–5 meetings)

Phase 1: Consultative selling (2–5 meetings)

Approaches

Expression of Interest

Senior management agreement

Partnership Pledge Forms signed

Phase 4: ReviewPhase 4: Review iTRACE travel surveys

Phase 2: DevelopmentPhase 2: Development

Management Group established

Consultants appointed (by TfL)

iTRACE surveys undertaken

Site specific travel plan report produced

~3 months~3 months

Phase 5: RenewPhase 5: Renew

Review, modify & reinvigorate plan

Ongoing monitoring

~6–12 months~6–12 months

~3 months~3 months

Phase 3: ImplementationPhase 3: Implementation

Implementation of ‘quick win’ / action planMarketing to employees \ stakeholders

~24 months~24 months

~24 months~24 months

~5 y

ears

~5 y

ears

Larg

e ta

rget

ed b

usin

esse

s

Net

wor

k gr

oups

pro

vide

acc

ess

Larg

e ta

rget

ed b

usin

esse

s

Net

wor

k gr

oups

pro

vide

acc

ess



Real Time Publicity;

Car sharing;

School and Community transport;

Flexible working hours and home working;

Co-ordinated home delivery systems;

Off-peak/ overnight servicing;

Potential for car free development;

Taxi hire;

Workplace parking restraint/ incentives for alternative travel; and

Cycle Hire schemes.

3.4 Workplace Travel Plans (WTP)

WTP

3.4.1 Workplace Travel Plans (WTPs) have been in existence since the early 1990s, though have

only been secured as standard practise in London since 2005. They are an established

Smarter Travel method that has a proven impact on the transport choices. London

government has secured more than 1,600 WTPs (with 400+ in West London and 170+ in

Brent) to date and has a well established standard methodology for implementation,

management and monitoring. Workplace Travel Plans are system management tools that

allow employers to manage transport to their site more efficiently. They are based on

surveys of the site and organisation policy and how staff and visitors travel to and from the

site and how they may be willing to travel. This then provides a number of options that can

be implemented, supported and promoted.

WTP - Approaches

3.4.2 There are two approaches as part of a workplace travel planning:

The first is to reduce the need to travel. This can be achieved using Smarter Working

measures often utilising (relatively) new technology such as teleconferencing and

allowing remote access to servers, whether from an employee’s home or another office

location. Measures might also include flexible working, the provision of on site cash

points, cafeteria etc in order that employees need only walk to the services they

require.

The second approach is to promote the existing alternative travel options to Single

Occupancy Car Journeys and in some cases improve the number of options available.

This is where infrastructural measures such as the cycle shelters and better footpaths

may be important. Other features might be facilities within the office such as changing

and showering for those who travel to work by cycle (or walk).

3.4.3 In order for a workplace travel plan to work it is likely that some incentives for using

sustainable transport and disincentives are applied to those who are single car occupiers.

This increases the costs of implementing a workplace travel plan, but this is likely to be

outweighed by the fiscal and other additional benefits of reduced car travel and possible

savings for the business.



WTP - Example Practices

3.4.4 Examples of new infrastructure include cycle shelters, improved footpaths, bus stops and car

park barriers. Many of these options could be implemented by London Borough of Brent and

TfL during the development of the Wembley area, thus improving the travel choices to the

site from point of occupancy. This will increase the likelihood that businesses will promote

sustainable travel modes and employees will use these travel modes from the outset. LB

Brent should also be able to provide information to potential businesses about the travel

opportunities available on the site.

3.4.5 Increasing complementary transport links between additional transport interchanges, for

example local rail or tube station, and the site may be done as part of a 106 agreement for

the site or as a regular contribution from business. Other activity for increasing sustainable

travel use might include negotiations with TfL and rail operators for corporate discounts on

season tickets for employees using the services as well as encouraging organisations to

provide interest-free loans for season tickets. Incentives to attract the use of certain modes

have also effectively been used. GlaxoSmith Kline, a West London employer, has used a

rewards system based on increased used of cycling this provides points that that can be built

up over time, based on how often an employee has cycled, these can be traded in for

merchandise and free cycle maintenance at a local retailer (service provided on site).

3.4.6 Disincentives to car use might include charging users for parking or restricting the number of

days employees are allowed to park in the office car park. Evidence used in the Parking

Forum study ‘Parking – its role in workplace and school travel plans’ showed that greater

modal shifts away from car use were achieved where an element of parking restraint was

used. This measure has also been implemented successfully at BSkyB in West London.

BSkyB gradually reduced the number of parking spaces available to staff which helped to

reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles being driven to the site. This reduction in

parking was complemented by the use of LiftShare (a car sharing database) along with a

shuttle bus from the local stations and free consultations available to staff with trained travel

planners. TfL is currently compiling a best practise guide on Parking Management for

Workplaces and has produced a real cost of parking leaflet to show organisations how much

the provision of car parking at their sites really costs. This will be discussed later in the

study.

3.4.7 GlaxoSmithKline, in Brentford (GSK) operate a rotational car parking management scheme,

were all members of staff must forego the right to park on site 1 week out of 5. This along

with the positive other positive incentives and travel plan measures such as cycling facilities

and Smarter Working measures has allowed them to accommodate a workforce of around

5,000 into a site originally designed to accommodate 3,000 employees.

WTP – Example Outcomes

3.4.8 BSkyB reduced the proportion of single occupancy car trips to their site from 63% to 51.2%

with people transferring to the train, car sharing, walking and cycling instead, these

promising results were produced within the first year of implementation of their travel plan.

3.4.9 GlaxoSmithKline saw a threefold increase in the number of employees cycling to the site

following the incentives program. They also estimate that the cost of improving cycle

facilities, providing incentives, a free shuttle bus and car sharing scheme are 80% less than

the cost of providing parking spaces for all employees. This saving is backed up by the



Highways agency research and TfL research that give the benefit cost ratio for government

transport scheme investment in workplace travel planning as 4.2:1 and 4.1:1 respectively;

this is highly favourable compared to most transport schemes.

WTP - Implementation and sources of funding assistance available

3.4.10 LB Brent can also provide a supporting role to firms using workplace travel plans in

partnership with WESTRANS and TfL by providing advice and helping with travel planning

measures and improvements to public transport provision and advertising of these

improvements.

3.4.11 The DfT report on smarter travel states that based on 20 case studies the average reduction

in number of vehicles per 100 staff is 18%. The reduction in car use between sites ranged

from no reduction up to a reduction of 35%. The results from the iTrace database show for

London the average modal shift away from single car occupancy is 12% while the West

London average is higher at more than 17% reduction in single car occupancy.

Hammersmith and Fulham was the borough recorded as having the highest reduction in

single occupancy car mode share of 25%. These results show that the support offered by

WestTrans and TfL along with commitment from business can aid reduced car travel to the

workplace.

3.4.12 Its is likely that most of the Workplace Travel Plans required through the site could be

obtained through the planning system at little or no cost to London Government. Section

3C.2 of the London Plan states that, ‘Developments with significant transport implications

should include a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan as part of planning applications'.

Developers and planning authorities should refer to TfL’s guidance on Transport

Assessments. All developments that exceed thresholds defined in TfL guidance on Workplace

Travel Plans and Residential Travel Plans should have a Travel Plan.’.”

3.4.13 The TfL WTP Guidance for Workplace Travel Planning for Development states that Travel

Plans should be obtained at workplace sites of all sizes on a sliding scale set out on page

14. The guidance also clearly sets out a process and system for doing this with standardised

legal agreements and other useful tools.

3.4.14 For Voluntary Travel plans, significant support for existing sites is available, sometimes up to

£20,000 per site, is available via TfL and WESTRANS through the Corporate and Enterprise

support packages, this is detailed at www.anewwaytowork.org.

3.4.15 West London has a good track record in Workplace travel planning with higher than average

results for the London area and some of London’s and the UK’s most advanced and best

practise examples of workplace travel planning. These include: the BBC, GSK, and BSkyB.

The Workplace Travel Plans for the London-wide area, West London, and Brent are

summarised in Table 3.2.



Table 3-2 iTRACE Results for Workplace Travel Plans (correct on January 13th

2008)

Area

#

Car

S.O.

(%)

C/S

Drv

(%)

C/S

Psgr

(%)

MC

(%)

Bus

(%)

U’grd

(%)

Rail

(%)

Bike/

Rail

(%)

Bicycl

e

(%)

Foot

(%)

Other

(%)

London

wide 35

-

11.88 -0.78 1.08 0.27 4.8 2.46 7.32 -0.33 0.31 -3.25 -0.01

West

London 5

-

17.76 -1.61 -2.37 -0.69 4.37 4.46 3.58 0.28 -0.13 9.29 0.57

Brent 2 1% 0 0.04 -1.18 2.47 -0.58 -0.58 0 0 -1.15 0

*Note workplace travel count includes only those places with repeat surveys e.g.. Travel Plans of

an advanced stage of development which have reached the repeat survey stage, these are likely

to have been developing their travel plan for a minimum of two to two and half years.

Table 3-3 Summary of Characteristics of Workplace TPs:

3.5 School Travel Plans (STP)

STP – Definition

3.5.1 School Travel Planning (STP) is a process of looking at all the problems caused by travel to

and from schools during the day, and developing a strategy that puts together a package of

solutions to help reduce the negative effects of this daily flow of pupils, staff and parents.

The Government have set a target for all schools to have travel plans by 2010 and the

Cost to LB Brent Low with development control implementation and availability of TfL

grants

National Average reduction in single occupancy car travel 18%

London wide Average reduction in single occupancy car travel 12%

West London Average reduction in single occupancy car travel 17%

Impact

Brent

To Employer

Reduced car parking costs, better retention and recruitment of staff due

to employee focus and less travel stress. Reduced absenteeism with

improved health and teleworking options. Social inclusion and more

sociable especially with car sharing. Good environmental management

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Reduction in pollution and traffic. Possible improved infrastructure in

terms of bus services or cycle facilities. Healthier environment

Pros

Evidence of reduced car travel, low cost to Brent, improvements for

community as well as workplaces, clear guidance on implementation and

best practice

Cons Requires employers to continue plan and monitor results.



Mayor of London changed the London target to 2009. More than 3000 of London primary

schools and secondary schools (550+ in West London and 90 in Brent) had travel plans by

January 2008. TfL helps to monitor the results of school travel plans and uses the iTRACE

database to collect information from surveys carried out by individual schools.

STP - Approaches

3.5.2 The main approach to school travel planning is providing the pupils, parents and staff with

information on alternatives to car travel along with making improvements to these

alternative modes. It may also be beneficial to make improvements to the infrastructure

within or around the school. Promoting sustainable travel events such as walk to school

weeks can help to impact normal school travel by persuading pupils to try new or different

modes for travelling to school. Providing incentives is also likely to be effective for

promoting sustainable travel along with other measures to discourage children being

dropped off by car at the school gates.

STP – Example Practices

3.5.3 Non infrastructural measures might include the provision of cycle training, establishing

walking buses for popular routes, teaching aids with children learning about sustainable

transport and road safety within the classroom and incentive campaigns to encourage

sustainable transport. The schools can also provide children with safety equipment such as

fluorescent clothing strips and may also like to provide pupils with more motivational items

such as pedometers allowing them to compare the distance they walk with other pupils.

Infrastructural improvements that may help to increase sustainable travel include additional

bicycle storage racks and pedestrian crossings. Schools may also promote safe routes to

school using improved or existing infrastructure that the pupils may not be aware of. These

safe routes can be promoted on maps given to pupils and displayed around the site for pupils

and parents to study.

3.5.4 Traffic calming is another physical option that can be implemented to help improve safety

and the likelihood of pupils walking or cycling to school. Improved bus services (possibly

with financial aid to some pupils) are likely to be important for those living beyond a

reasonable walking or cycling distance from the school. Improvements may include factors to

reduce the cost to users, improve the quality of the service and staggering local school start

times so that buses make multiple trips (reducing the cost of running each service). An

alternative for those living at a distance from the school is establishing car sharing schemes

for school escort trips.

STP – Example Outcomes

3.5.5 The DfT report stated that up to 20% of schools implementing a travel plan would see no

reduction in car travel. The other schools with travel plans will achieve a reduction in car

travel. The report states that for engaged schools there may be a reduction in the car escort

trips to and from schools with travel plans of either 13% or 21%. The results from iTrace

suggest that the London wide change in modal share away from car use is 6.7%. West

London boroughs implementing school travel plans have out-performed London as a whole in

terms of modal shift away from the car and have the second highest area reduction in car

travel of 8.9%. The London Borough of Ealing had the second highest reduction in car use

(15.5%) of all London boroughs. All the west London boroughs had a reduction in car use



greater than the average for London showing that the success of school travel planning in

Brent ought to be at a similar level to that of the surrounding boroughs (Table 3.4).

Table 3-4 iTrace STP output

Area # Car

Car

Share Bus Rail Bicycle Foot Park/Walk Other

London

Wide 1366

-

6.72%

-

0.43% 0.76%

-

0.41% 0.72% 4.21% 1.49% 0.39%

West

London 165

-

9.92% 0.61% 2.14%

-

0.45% 1.17% 4.50% 0.09% 0.85%

Note: School count only includes schools with repeat travel surveys

STP - Implementation and sources of funding assistance available

3.5.6 School travel plans can be implemented with minimal cost if the main impetus is on

marketing the existing travel opportunities. It is likely that some funding will be needed to

provide training to children, produce information materials and improve infrastructure.

Funding may be available from a number of sources, due to the range of associated benefits,

such as health and environmental budgets rather than just the education budget.

3.5.7 Like workplace travel plans school travel plans can be implemented as a result of

development controls meaning that most of the cost associated with developing the plan can

be met by the developer (though in some cases this may be the Local Authority itself).

3.5.8 The TFL Guidance for Workplace Travel Planning for Development also covers Thresholds for

Schools and states the thresholds for land use D1 (schools) and requires all schools to have

a travel plan the guidance defines schools as:

‘Educational establishments teaching pupils up to and including the age of 16 years (up to

19 where schools cater for pupils with Special Educational Needs). All schools are

expected to develop and implement a school travel plan (STP) regardless of size, age

range, status or location. This includes nursery schools and Children’s Centres, private

and independent schools, Local Education Authorities, Community, Special, Voluntary,

Trust or Foundation Schools, academies, City Technology Colleges, and Pupil Referral

Units.’

3.5.9 This also means that the developer may be required to provide the equivalent of safe routes

to schools in terms of good pedestrian and cycling facilities.



Table 3-5 Summary table of Characteristics of School TPs

Cost to LB Brent Medium due to borough being responsible for schools. Some grants

available and possible to work in partnership with local businesses or

public transport operators to reduce costs. Also development control

measures mean developer responsible for some of the costs

National Reduced car escort trips of 13% or 20%

London wide Reduction in car escort trips of 6.6%

West London Hammersmith and Fulham reduction in car escort trips of 25%

Impact

Brent NA

To School

Improved health of pupils and safety outside the school gates. Improved

relationship with neighbours. Opportunity to teach citizenship and

sustainability ideas to children

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Reduction in traffic around schools at peak time. Streets safer for all

pedestrians and cyclists with less traffic and improved facilities

Pros All schools required to develop travel plans anyway. 80% of schools see

a reduction in car use.

Cons 20% of schools see no reduction in car travel

3.6 Personal Travel Planning (PTP)

PTP - Definition

3.6.1 Personal travel planning involves the direct marketing of travel planning tailored to the

individual’s current travel patterns and options for changing their travel. It has been

implemented overseas since the 1980s and was first introduced in the UK in the early 2000s.

PTP - Approaches

3.6.2 The main approach for implementing Personal Travel Plans is through door-to-door

consultations with residents in a targeted area. It is often the case that multiple visits are

made in order to provide advice to as many people as possible. It can also be delivered as

part of workplace travel planning or information has more recently been available at sports

and leisure clubs. The main element of this is marketing the various travel options available

to the individual for the different journeys they make on a regular basis. It can be used as a

method of promoting changes to local infrastructure and improvements or changes to public

transport that are likely to improve or increase the travel options available to users and

potential users. To some extent the need or distance travelled can be reduced using

personal travel planning by encouraging the use of local services, as well as encouraging the

use of internet or catalogue shopping.



PTP - Example Practices

3.6.3 Information is the main element of personal travelling planning. It is important that targeted

participants can be provided with information on travel opportunities that are most relevant

to them. This may include providing maps and timetables for local public transport services,

as well as producing walking and cycling maps of the targeted areas with information on the

distances and times taken in order to encourage use. Some useful infrastructural

improvements such as increasing the number of available bike racks and improving or

building bus shops and shelters may also be beneficial for increasing use.

3.6.4 Personalised Travel Planning in the UK has seen reductions in the car modal share of

between 5% and 14%. Wembley is considered to be a good opportunity for the provision of

personal travel planning since the new infrastructure being added in the area and the

improvements to roads in the area have seen significant investments that can be marketed

in such schemes. It is also stated that a time of change is a good time to introduce new

measures, as is the case with the investment in the Wembley area currently. The area also

benefits from good public transport links with the three rail/tube stations and bus services.

3.6.5 Personal travel planning can be delivered as part of a residential travel planning process.

This involves the same promotion of sustainable travel options but may also include

additional incentives such as the provision of a free bicycle to new residents, a reduction in

available parking spaces for residents or discounted or free use of local public transport.

Given the new developments in Wembley this may be a good way of implementing personal

travel planning. Residents with information and are more likely to use sustainable travel

modes from when they move in. If residents were engaged upon occupation this could

significantly increase the outputs of Personal Travel Planning as it would take advantage of

the ‘Change Opportunity’ that occurs before travel patterns have been established.

3.6.6 Using residential travel planning also means that measures can be taken during the

development process to make sustainable travel more commonplace. This might include the

provision of specific secure areas for delivery of goods and good pedestrian and cycle

facilities surrounding the site. The use of a car club and the limiting of car spaces per

residence may also aid a reduction in car use, especially if membership to a car club is

included as an incentive to use on occupation of the development. Reducing the need to

travel can also be achieved through residential travel plans with high availability of

broadband to enable working from home as well as close local facilities such as education,

childcare, shopping, leisure and community centres.

PTP - Example Outcomes

3.6.7 The results of three London pilot Personal Travel Planning Schemes in 2003 led to a modal

shift away from car use to more sustainable travel modes of 6%, with a 12% shift in the

London Borough of Kingston. With varying levels of intensity or proportion of the population

targeted in personal travel planning the impact of this measure given its reduction in car

modal share (7-15%) is either 1% or 3% for urban areas. The DfT report an average

reduction in car use where PTP is implemented of 11% with an accompanying 12% decrease

in the distance travelled by car.

PTP - Costs of implementation

3.6.8 The cost of implementation as an average from implemented schemes is 2.2pence per

vehicle km saved. By using residential travel planning however the cost to the borough will



be lower as the development may be made responsible for the implementation of the

scheme. The average cost per household is between £20 and £38, while the benefit: cost

ratio is typically about 30:1 showing that the benefits far outweigh the associated costs.

Table 3-6 Summary of Characteristics of Personal TPs:

Cost to LB Brent Medium cost level of £20 to £38 per household. Opportunities to require

developer to implement many of the measures though

National Reduction in car use of 5 to 14%

London wide Example results average 6% reduction in car use, with Kingston 12%

reduction

West London

Impact

Brent

To Residents Greater knowledge of sustainable travel, reduced costs of running and

owning a vehicle

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Local economy benefits from increased local use. Improved PT for all

community users with reduced traffic and pollution

Pros Good PT already exists in Wembley and good benefit cost ratio

Cons High potential monitoring costs with high demands on staff time

3.7 Car Sharing Schemes (CSS)

CSS - Definition

3.7.1 Car sharing involves a system for matching trips made by at least two people that could be

made by using one car. It involves two or more people sharing a car for a whole or part of a

journey. It can be a formal scheme such as those implemented by workplaces or more

informal with friends travelling together.

CSS – Approach

3.7.2 The main approach is using a formal system or database for matching trips made by

different individuals. Liftshare is an example of such a database and offers free membership

to the general public and can also offer individualised databases to companies so that they

can set up their own car sharing scheme for employees. It provides a secure means for

people to find car sharing partners without giving out lots of personal details. Car sharing

commonly plays a part in workplace travel plans since the destination is the same and the

employer can use the individualised database to help employees find potential car sharers.

It is a good alternative for those who do not have easy access to public transport and do not

live within walking or cycling distance of their destination.



CSS - Example Practice

3.7.3 A matching system such as LiftShare will help to provide information on possible car shares

as well as additional information on car sharing to potential users. Like most TDM measures

the use of incentives is also likely to increase uptake of any car sharing schemes. These

incentives may include prime parking spots for car sharers, free parking for car sharers or a

reward scheme for car sharing such as discount vouchers for use in employee canteens. It

may also be useful to organise events where potential car sharers can meet and find out

more about such schemes. For employers in particular it may also be useful to have a

‘guaranteed ride home’ whereby the employer pays for a taxi or public transport or is able to

find an alternative lift if a car share is not possible for some reason.

3.7.4 Increased advertising of the existence of such car sharing opportunities, especially the

existence of car sharing websites such as Liftshare, within personal travel planning

opportunities and general advertising around the development provides an option for Brent

to increase awareness and use of such travel opportunities. There is already a regional

londonliftshare website and it would be possible to set up a more local Wembley focused site

if required.

3.7.5 There are presently 3,420 car sharers registered in the Wembley area and a more integrated

and widely promoted approach to this measure could well prove effective with employees,

residents and visitors, especially if this was linked on visible on street infrastructure such as

car share only parking bays and street signs that created an advantage to the user.

CSS - Example Outcomes

3.7.6 DfT case studies suggest that implemented a car sharing scheme can increase the number of

people sharing private vehicles by an average of 3% from 13% to 16%. LiftShare currently

has 3,420 members within 5 miles of Wembley and 12,520 members within 10 miles.

Liftshare estimate that for every 10 members 4 people contact a potential sharer and 2

people share a daily commute. This means that for roughly every 10 members there is one

less return journey. Most trips (65% of a random 250 trip sample) are made daily or weekly

with the majority being for commuting purposes. Given these averages it is possible that

1250 trips are saved daily by the members within 10 miles of Wembley. Figure 3.2 shows

the post code locations of current Liftshare members within 5 miles of central Wembley.

Figure 3.2 Wembley Liftshare catchment



CSS - Cost of implementation

3.7.7 TfL already operate an existing London wide Liftshare system which could be adapted into a

Wembley sub grouping at relatively low cost and deals for employers via the TFL ‘new way to

work ‘scheme already exist. The costs related to car sharing vary depending on the size and

method of implementation. Using a journey matching tool such as LiftShare is relatively low

cost since there is the initial set up cost plus running costs (mostly license fee) to be paid.

Other schemes require administration in order to match trips and these will result in higher

costs due to the time involved in their management. The costs for using LiftShare for

businesses range from £400 (with £200 running costs) to £1000 (with £500 running costs),

although larger schemes will be more expensive. There are additional costs involved in

marketing the scheme in order to increase usage. The two case studies in the DfT’s Smarter

Choices report resulted in 0.7 pence per km cut and 3.3pence per km cut (involved high

administration costs).

Table 3-7 Summary of Characteristics of Car Sharing Schemes

Cost to LB Brent Low with either workplace schemes paid for privately or use of individual

system. Opportunity to develop own LiftShare database but higher cost

National Case study increases in car sharing from 13% to 16% on average

London wide

West London Impact

Brent 10% reduction in car trips by members

To User

Reduced fuel and vehicle running costs. Alternative travel option for non

car owners. More social journey with guaranteed parking likely and better

work life balance from leaving work on time

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Reduction in peak time traffic with likely reduction in pollution

Pros Low cost and effective scheme for users, especially commuters. Existing

membership increases shows popularity.

Cons Need to offer guaranteed ride home. May be harder to increase car sharing

for leisure and personal trips

3.8 Area Based Travel Planning (ABTP)

ABTP - Definition

3.8.1 Area based travel planning involves the use of a mixture of travel planning approaches often

used to complement infrastructural changes in order to improve the traffic problems within

an area. Workplace, school and personal travel planning can be included and should help

increase the number of people in the area using sustainable travel modes. It is also likely to

involve the advertising of sustainable travel options. The aim of such a scheme will be to



reduce congestion and car use within the area by increasing the use of more sustainable

modes of transport.

ABTP - Approaches

3.8.2 As suggested above the main approaches are to implement more specific travel plan

initiatives in workplaces, schools and homes along with other schemes such as car clubs and

cycle training schemes. Marketing is likely to play an important role in promoting the

various sustainable travel options as well as the benefits associated with switching to the use

of these alternative modes.

ABTP - Example Practice

3.8.3 The first part of such a project is likely to involve a travel awareness and advertising

campaign to promote the scheme. This may included a website, poster advertising, bus back

advertising, road shows and various other events and various advertising in the media.

3.8.4 The other required outputs are similar to those related to the individual requirements for

personal, workplace and school travel plans. For example incentives for using sustainable

travel along with information available on these alternatives and distributed to potential

users.

ABTP - Example Outcomes

3.8.5 The Smarter Travel Sutton project, launched in September 2006 is one of the few examples

where area based travel planning has been used and has some preliminary results available

for analysis. The project involved use of workplace, school and residential travel planning,

with the residential planning forming the bulk of the project. Its overall aim was to help

people within the borough find out about their travel options by providing travel information.

Free personal travel planning advice was given to all residents within the borough, while

grants for cycle facilities including racks, lockers and showers were available for businesses

submitting travel plans.

3.8.6 In Smarter Travel Sutton’s first year there was a 2% decrease in the car mode share (from

49% to 47%). More than a third of residents were already, considering or willing to consider

reducing the their current level of driving. The results from opinion surveys before and after

the travel plans showed that more people knew about the public transport options and also

that they had a higher opinion of the options available to them in general. The results of this

project were compared to those of the three sustainable towns and considered to show a

good start at increasing sustainable travel.

3.8.7 The interim results for the three towns that are part of the sustainable towns project showed

a significant decrease in car use and accompanying increase in alternative modes in the

targeted populations. They used measures such as personalised travel marketing, workplace

and school travel plans and public transport improvements and marketing. Darlington saw

car use reduced by 11% for the targeted population with an additional decrease in car use by

parts of the population not targeted by the marketing schemes. Worcester’s car use

decreased by 12% while Peterborough’s decreased by 13%. Walking and cycling were the

two modes that increased their use the most during the first part of the project but there

were also increases in the percentage use of public transport as well.



3.8.8 While there are no figures on the likely impact of area based travel planning given in the

Smarter Choices report, the possible impact ought to be the combined impact of the

measures implemented while allowing for double counting between overlapping measures.

For example, the report suggests that journeys to work (workplace travel planning, car

sharing and teleworking combined) could result in an 8% or 26% reduction in car use or car

mileage. This figure is slightly less than the sum of the three measures showing that an

allowance for double counting has been included.

ABTP - Cost of implementation and sources of funding assistance available

3.8.9 This again will vary depending on the measures used. Advertising and travel awareness

campaigns are likely to be relatively high cost but the information can also be used in the

individual travel plan elements. The overall cost therefore will be the sum of the cost of the

measures implemented with some savings based on the overlap of some features between

measures.

Table 3-8 Summary of Characteristics of Area Based TP:

Cost to LB Brent Low to medium cost with some elements being implemented by

businesses and developers

National Given that WTP reduce single car occupancy 18% and STP’s reduce car

escort trips by 13+% possible reductions of more than 20% in car use

London wide Sutton scheme reduced car use 2% in first year of scheme

West London

Impact

Brent

To Users Better health with more walking and cycling. Able to help support local

economy

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Increased feeling of community, reduced traffic and reduced

environmental damage

Pros Possible that the cumulative effects of individuals may produce better

results than the sum of individual parts

Cons Time and cost restraints to level of implementation. Hard to monitor

effects of scheme

3.9 Car Clubs (CC)

CC - Definition

3.9.1 Car clubs aim to provide members with quick and easy access to a car for short term hire.

Limited notice is required to book a vehicle and there should normally be one available to

any member who wishes to use a vehicle. Users pay an annual subscription which means

that a pay as you go scheme can be operated and the only other expense to users is for

mileage. The idea is that users will not need to own their own vehicle or will reduce the



number of vehicles they own. Car clubs seek to break the habitual use of the car by making

it more of an effort to use a car for journeys and making the cost of such car trips more

visible to the user. There are already about 30 car clubs within the London borough of

Brent, one of which is within the Wembley area.

CC - Approaches

3.9.2 Car clubs can be used by individuals or by organisations. For individual use, they may be

located within residential developments so that local members have easy access to the

vehicles. When used by a business, some of a the car club vehicles may be stored at the

business location in special car club spaces and the business is likely to block book cars

during the day leaving them available for individual use during the evenings and weekends.

CC- Example Practices

3.9.3 Unfortunately the mixed use approach means the fiscal viability of car clubs has been difficult

to establish in the UK with most car share sites tend to predominately cater to either

residential or business audiences. Car clubs are likely to be most successful when located in

relatively high density residential locations so that there are a large number of potential

members. It is also important that there are good public transport, walking and cycling

facilities available so that users are able to carry out their everyday business without the use

of a car. The pricing of a scheme should mean that it is attractive to occasional car users

while being expensive for commuters so that vehicles will be available when people require

them. Limited parking for private vehicles with prime allocated spaces for car club vehicles

is likely to increase usage. Implementing a car club scheme during a time of change such as

moving house has proved successful. It may therefore be useful to at least promote if not

provide free or reduced membership to residents moving into a new development with a car

club. In order to economically viable, it is likely that each car club will require between 15

and 25 members per vehicle.

CC - Example Outcomes

3.9.4 Vehicles are most commonly used on occasions when other modes would be difficult such as

shopping for furniture, when making occasional trips and also for day or weekend leisure

trips. Car clubs schemes in Bristol and Edinburgh estimate that each member reduces their

distance travelled by more than 3000km per year (includes in calculation members who

neither did nor previously own a car), thus reducing their annual mileage by about 25%.

3.9.5 Car Plus estimates that car club users reduce their average mileage by 50% as they are

forced to plan their car use in order to make the best use of a car club vehicle when they

have hired it. It is also likely that one car club vehicle replaces between 6 and 20 personal

vehicles on the roads. They grow somewhat organically with increasing number of members

and vehicles helping to further increase membership.

3.9.6 A TfL report (Synovate 2007) reported on evidence from car club members that there was a

reduction in the number of days spent driving by 36% per year. The report also suggested

that 13% of members sold a car after joining a car club while there is an additional reduction

in the number of cars where people might otherwise have purchased a car. It is estimated in

London that there more than 5 cars have been removed from the road for every car club

vehicle, which is based on an average of 26 members per car club car.



3.9.7 Car clubs can also offer fairly substantial savings opportunities to most businesses when

compared to pool or company cars. The average savings are estimated to be about £2,500

per pool car due mostly to the cost of maintenance and administration involved with pool

cars.

3.9.8 The Smarter Choices report bases its car club predictions on international examples. It

assumes that the members of such schemes reduce their average car mileage by a third but

that only a small proportion of the total population become members of such schemes

leading to low figures. The figures are 0.03% or 0.06% reduction in car mileages. The more

important figure to consider therefore might be that the mileage of car club members

reduces by a third so increasing membership and using disincentives for car ownership will

help reduce mileage linked to the development.

CC - Cost of implementation

3.9.9 The costs are relatively high, especially initially since the vehicles need to be purchased and

there are other set up costs involved along with continuing administration. The cost of the

car club to the Local Authority tends to orientate around the provision of dedicated parking

bays and the enforcement of these. Many car clubs are operated by private enterprises

meaning that the level of investment needed from the local authority is lower than if they

run the scheme themselves. Using a private car club firm to set up a car club also means

that they have a greater knowledge level regarding how to go about setting up and running

the club. TfL views Car Clubs as a commercial enterprise and although some trials have

been undertaken, subsidy for the running of such club is unlikely unless it can be secured

from the developer through planning obligations. The DfT’s Smarter Choices report estimates

that it costs about 5 pence for every kilometre saved.

Table 3-9 Summary of Characteristics of Car Clubs

Cost to LB Brent Low since developers are likely to be made responsible or private

enterprises can run schemes for profit

National Average 30% reduction in car mileage for car club members

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To User Lower costs of car use without needing to own and maintain a vehicle Added

Value

Benefits

To Community

Scheme likely available to other community members. Sense of

community through shared use of vehicles. Less pollution since car club

cars newer and greener and often replaces older more polluting vehicles.

More socially inclusive given lower costs

Pros Increased travel choice for members with lower car use costs. Reduced

parking needs and traffic

Cons High cost of setting up scheme and reasonably large membership

required before financial viability achieved and the need to provide and



enforce dedicated parking bays.

Many members were previously infrequent drivers so less opportunity to

reduce car trips.

3.10 Cycle Hire Schemes (CHS)

CHS - Definition

3.10.1 Cycle hire schemes can operate in a number of different ways but the idea is for users to hire

the cycles for a short period and complete their journey by cycle rather than completing the

journey by motor vehicle. In most of the schemes it is possible to return the cycle to a

location that is different to where it was collected originally.

CHS - Approaches

3.10.2 The Paris and Barcelona schemes operate on a membership basis, with deposits being taken

to encourage the return of cycles and/or the first 30mins of use being free. After the first

free period the rate of hire increases rapidly to discourage long use of the cycle so that it can

be made available to other users. Since the Paris and Barcelona examples have many cycles

and stands from which to collect those users are able to return one bike and then almost

immediately hire another cycle from another nearby bicycle stand.

CHS - Example Practices

3.10.3 The Paris and Barcelona schemes have been successful in part because of their size. It is

important to have sufficient cycles and locations for their storage so that users are always

able to find a cycle and are not restricted about where they can return it to. This means that

a relatively large number of cycles will be required with stations for their storage/rental also

being required. Improvements to the cycle infrastructure of an area may benefit users.

Advertising the scheme will be important in order to increase the number of users.

CHS - Example Outcomes

3.10.4 Significant numbers of users have been recorded by the Paris Cycle Hire Scheme. However,

it is suggested that the users are not generally switching from car use to cycling. It is

thought instead that most users are transferring from (overcrowded) public transport

(especially high usage recorded during metro strikes in Paris) and from taxi use due to its

high cost. The most common users are commuters and tourists with membership options

aimed at both user groups. This suggests that while such schemes are successful at increase

cycle riding within areas this does not necessarily accompany a reduction in motor vehicle

based travel.

3.10.5 It is suggested that the running of trial schemes would not be overly successful as each

increase in size attracts significantly more users to the scheme.

CHS - Cost of implementation

3.10.6 The costs of implementation are high due to the capital investment required to set up such a

scheme as well as continuing administration and maintenance costs.



Table 3-10 Summary of Characteristics of Cycle Hire Schemes

Cost to LB Brent High cost of set up with additional maintenance

National Likely to be low with current schemes most successful in large cities

London wide Possible success in Central London but may not reduce car trips since

users switch from PT and Taxi use

West London

Impact

Brent

To User Health benefits of cycling, more travel choice, possibly cheaper mode of

travel Added

Value

Benefits To Community Possible increase in cycle safety given higher numbers of cyclists

Pros Health benefits to population and possible reduction in PT crowding

Cons High set up costs and very limited reduction in car use observed

3.11 Flexible Working Hours and Home or Teleworking (FWH)

FWH- Definition

3.11.1 Flexible working hours mean that employees are able to travel at times when the roads are

likely to be quieter meaning that there is some capacity for a reduction in traffic at peak

times.

3.11.2 Home working allows employees to work from their home, thus reducing their need to travel

to an office. Teleworking meanwhile means that employees can work remotely whether from

home or from site.

FWH - Approaches

3.11.3 Flexible hours can be implemented in a number of different ways allowing staff to either

work their basic hours having started at a time more convenient to them, or a scheme which

allows weekly or monthly hours to be worked more flexibly. This allows employees to take

occasional time off in lieu of hours already worked. The idea is that it reduces the need to

travel during peak travel times.

3.11.4 Teleworking can involve working from home, or from a location that is closer to home than

the office for all or some of the time. Such schemes often involve employees being granted

remote access to an employer’s server so that they can work from their alternative chosen

location.



FHW - Example Practices

3.11.5 Flexible working hours may be able to help reduce traffic but are unlikely to lead to any

significant reduction in car use. Teleworking is more likely to reduce the number of car trips

made despite concerns that people would continue to use their vehicle but for other trips.

FWH - Example Outcomes

3.11.6 The results of BAA’s introduction of teleworking led to a decrease in the average mileage

despite an increase in non-commuting trips. Statistics suggest that London has the highest

level of teleworking within the UK with 17-26% of the workforce working from home for

some time every week, leading to a reduction in the number of am peak commuter trips of

between 4.5% and 8.3%. Meaning that the potential mileage savings for Brent are relatively

high.

3.11.7 Smarter Choices suggests that teleworking can result in a 3 or 12% reduction in car usage

for urban areas. These figures are based on the assumption that 30% of the workforce work

from home an average of 3 days per week that teleworkers live the national average

distance from their place of work and that car mode share for these workers is the same as

the national average. The reduction in car use stated is based on journey to work trips only.

However these figures are often reported as part of overall Workplace Travel Plan results, so

it is unlikely they would have much effect in the Wembley development in their own right.

However insistence that all Workplace Travel Plans implemented in the development include

Smarter Working could further bolster the WTP figures to ensure the high end of what mode

shift is possible via a WTP.

FWH - Cost of implementation

3.11.8 The cost to the local borough of such a scheme should be low given that it is up to employers

to implement such schemes and they can be an integral part of a WTP. Making businesses

aware of the options and their benefits would be a useful measure that the borough could

make. It should be the case that the savings made from implementing such schemes

outweigh the costs involved in the project.



Table 3-11 Summary of Characteristics of Flexible Working Hours and Teleworking

Cost to LB Brent Low cost with businesses implementing changes

National 3 or 12% reduction in car use for urban area predicted with teleworking

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To Employer

Less stressed and generally happier staff due to not having to commute

during busiest times. Shorter or no travel time for staff seen as an

incentive with reduced staff turnover possible. Increased efficiency and

productivity

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Less traffic during peak times. Access to broadband internet services

install for home teleworking

Pros Relatively easy and low cost for businesses to implemented with multiple

benefits

Cons Not suitable for all employment sectors and are generally amalgamated

into WTP outputs.

3.12 Off-Peak/ Overnight Servicing (OPOS)

OPOS - Definition

3.12.1 Goods deliveries and collections can be made outside peak times in order to help reduce

traffic problems in an area. Restrictions may need to be lifted in order to allow for this and

monitoring of noise levels especially at night may be important.

OPOS - Approaches

3.12.2 Servicing premises at night can be done by larger companies in order to reduce costs as well

as reducing goods vehicles disrupting traffic during peak hours. It will need to involve

measures to reduce the noise made during delivery where the premises are in a residential

area.

OPOS - Example Practices

3.12.3 Reducing noise can be done in a number of different ways including switching off engines

and radios, not loading empty roll cages and sound proofing full cages and their contents.

Larger vehicles can be used in order to reduce the number of deliveries made since there

ought to be additional space available for the larger vehicles to park. Suitability of such

measures will need to be considered on an individual basis, since it will not be practical in

some circumstances to have overnight deliveries and staff will be required to help with the

unloading process or sign for deliveries.



OPOS - Example Outcomes

3.12.4 A trial in Barcelona showed a negligible increase in the ambient noise as a result of night

time delivery. Despite the initial investment required in order to implement quieter servicing

a return on the investment is generally expected within 3 years due to trip consolidation and

time and fuel savings.

3.12.5 There was also a trial at Sainsbury’s in Wandsworth involving deliveries taking place between

1:30am and 3:00am. The results of which were generally positive with no complaints to a

dedicated telephone number and average journey times being reduced. The customer and

store feedback was also positive and improvements in air quality were seen.

OPOS - Cost of Implementation

3.12.6 The cost to the local borough will be medium due to the noise monitoring required to ensure

that residents are not suffering increased noise pollution. There are also costs involved for

the freight company in order to research possible ways of reducing noise made during

deliveries. The costs of changing delivery restrictions should be a one off and relatively

small.

Table 3-12 Summary of Characteristics of Off-Peak/ Overnight Servicing

Cost to LB Brent Medium costs mostly due to noise monitoring and changing restrictions

National Low impact due to only small number of trips likely to be removed from

network

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To Employer Possibly better time for delivery e.g. fresh food supplies. More reliable

delivery slots with quicker journey times Added

Value

Benefits To Community Less goods vehicles in peak times and reduction in pollution

Pros Possible to reduce number of deliveries and time and pollution savings

Cons Limited businesses that could or would implement scheme, further

research into reducing noise needed and practicality of scheme use.

3.13 Real Time Publicity on Travel Opportunities (RTP)

RTP - Definition

3.13.1 In order to increase the number of people using public transport it is important to publicise

the existence of the different travel opportunities available. This is likely to be especially

important when improvements to services have been made.



RTP - Approaches

3.13.2 Some schemes will advertise specific services or a number of travel options using posters

and the media. A different approach might be to advertise a change in pricing scheme

and/or ticketing policy such as the use of Oyster cards.

RTP - Example Practices

3.13.3 Advertising specific transport services may be done on a general basis with general

advertising in public areas and within the media or alternatively it can be done directly

through schemes such as personal travel planning. This means that the information can be

targeted at the most likely users of the service, so spending might be seen as more efficient

since the uptake compared to the number of people spoken to is likely to be higher as a

percentage.

RTP - Example Outcomes

3.13.4 The results of an advertising campaign aiming to persuade users of the A12 to take the train

from Chelmsford instead following timetable improvements and promoting the quicker

journey time of the train showed an increase in train ticket sales of at least 12%.

3.13.5 Schemes similar to the London Oyster card scheme were implemented in two German cities

and the results showed increased public transport patronage. The main elements of such

schemes were the simplified pricing structure and also the fact that the tickets are for more

than just a single mode of transport.

3.13.6 Direct advertising in Perth, Scotland led to an increase in patronage of 56% in the first two

years. There were service improvements including increased bus frequency, new buses,

simpler fares and bus priority and these were backed up with the advertising. The

advertising campaign included door to door interviews with potential users, free trips being

offered, children’s competitions and pensioners’ lunches. Buckinghamshire council also ran a

public transport advertising campaign following the introduction of a new route. The buses

in use had ‘every 10 mins’ printed on their sides while information was sent to residents

within 500 metres of the bus route. The marketing campaign led to great rises in use than

prior to the campaign following the improvements. Bus patronage was reported to have

increased by 28%.

3.13.7 In the DfT’s Smarter Choices Report that cite the possible reduction in car driver mileage as

0.3% or 11%. This assumes that 30% of any increase in bus patronage is made up of

former car users of whom 19% were drivers and 11% were passengers.

RTP - Cost of implementation

3.13.8 The cost of publicity schemes is often relatively high given that a large amount of marketing

will be needed in order to reach the target groups for increasing public transport use. This

results in a high cost per km saved of around 4pence. Direct marketing to new potential

users through schemes such as personal and workplace travel plans may therefore be more

efficient although some potential users will be missed by such schemes.



Table 3-13 Summary of Characteristics of Real Time Publicity on Travel

Opportunities

Cost to LB Brent High due to cost of marketing schemes with limited help from public

transport operators available

National Possible 0.3% or 1.1% reduction in car use

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To users Reduces social exclusion with the public being made aware of their travel

choices. Better services available, with possible further improvements

due to increased revenue for operators

Added

Value

Benefits

To Community Relationship between business community and bus firms developed.

Increased retail vitality with more people choosing to shop more locally

Pros Effective way of increasing patronage especially following infrastructure

improvements

Cons Not guaranteed to reach target audience unless direct or individual

marketing is carried out

3.14 Car Free Development Potential (CFD)

CFD - Definition

3.14.1 Car free developments are sites which are built without providing parking spaces for the

residents or employees who will use the built space. There are normally some disabled

spaces, with the main aim of such projects being to reduce the number of car trips to and

from the site.

CFD - Approaches

3.14.2 The developments sometimes include spaces for car club vehicles but there are more

examples of developments with limited (less than one space per residence) rather than no

parking available. This should encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport to

and from the site

CFD - Example Practices

3.14.3 It will be important that there is good public transport surrounding the development as well

as the provision of local services such as shops, cafes, childcare and healthy living centres.

It will also be beneficial to develop travel plans for the occupants of such a site so that they

are able to plan their travel without using a car. It is also necessary to have a controlled

parking zone surrounding the development to avoid the displacement of cars rather than any

reduction in car use.



CFD - Example Outcomes

3.14.4 BedZED in Sutton is the main example within the UK of a car free development. The

development aims to reduce the average car mileage to 50% of that of a conventional site.

The main mode of travel by residents is on foot (accounting for roughly 50% of the mode

share). Public transport and cycling are also popular but the car still makes up between 15%

and 20% of the mode share within the site.

Table 3-14 Summary of Characteristics of Car Free Development Potential

Cost to LB Brent Low cost as scheme implemented by developer

National Low given small number of existing sites and limited number of potential

sites

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To residents Able to live in more environmentally friendly manner. Travel plan

implemented allows for more personal trip planning options

Added

Value

Benefits To Community Reduced pollution with fewer cars. Access to car club and other improved

travel options in the area

Pros Effective way to reduce car ownership to some extent and encourage

more sustainable living practices

Cons Requires CPZ in surrounding area and many residents not previous car

owners

3.15 Co-ordinated Home Delivery Systems (CHDS)

CHDS - Definition

3.15.1 Co-ordinated home delivery involves users purchasing goods without visiting a shop and

having these goods delivered directly to their home. Internet grocery shopping is an

example of such a system and is also the main area where research into home delivery has

taken place.

CHDS - Approach

3.15.2 The internet and catalogue shopping delivery services are fairly well established but

improvements to the systems can still be made. Additional delivery facilities reducing the

need for repeat attempts at delivery are one option for improving home delivery systems

would be beneficial. An alternative option would be to offer delivery to an alternative

location closer to the recipient’s home or office.



CHDS - Example Practices

3.15.3 Local delivery points, lockers or secure ‘drop off’ boxes for individual residences within a

development should enable most deliveries to be made on the first attempt. This should

reduce the need for extra trips by either the delivery company or the individual in order to

receive the item and may have the additional benefit of making internet or catalogue

shopping a more attractive opportunity for people living within the development. A different

option is to deliver the items to a local post office rather than a central sorting office. This

should reduce the distance people need to travel to collect their goods, thus reduce car use

where people can walk and car mileage due to the closer location. It may also be valuable to

work with local businesses in order to set up home delivery schemes possibly in conjunction

with other local business. Promoting the benefits of such delivery systems in personal travel

planning may aid an increase in uptake of such schemes.

CHDS - Example Outcomes

3.15.4 Nottingham City Council set up a scheme that allowed those within the study area to chose

where deliveries should be made if they were not in during the attempted delivery. One of

the options was for the item to be taken to the local post office. In the trial, many people

chose to have items delivered to their local post office and some of them did walk to collect

their deliveries.

3.15.5 The Smarter Choices report suggests that more local collection choices could reduce related

mileage by 72% based on the fact that 15% of collections are made during a journey

elsewhere, that 30% of collection trips are no longer made by car and that the average

distance travelled for the remaining trips is halved. It is suggested that if such schemes

were implemented nationwide there is potential to reduce car mileage by 1.5%.

CHDS - Cost of implementation

3.15.6 Most of the investment will be needed in the private sector. The only costs will be any

liaising with local businesses and the promotion of services (probably included in PTP

budget).

Table 3-15 Summary of Characteristics of Co-ordinated Home Delivery Systems

Cost to LB Brent Low cost with most costs met by private investors

National Possible 1.5% reduction in grocery mileage

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To User Convenience of home delivery in terms of time savings. Added

Value

Benefits To Community Better delivery options available to people within wider area. More

delivery opportunities from local shops offering delivery

Pros Effective way to decrease grocery and delivery collection miles



Cons People may still visit the shops to view products before order for home

delivery so not always reducing number of trips made

3.16 Taxi Hire (TH)

TH - Definition

3.16.1 Taxis are most commonly hired for relatively short trips in urban areas to places that are

either not well linked by public transport or at times, such as late evening, when public

transport services are limited. London has significantly more taxis than any other area of

the UK and likewise has the highest taxi usage figures. There are also a small number of

taxi share schemes where people are likely to be heading to similar destinations.

TH- Approaches

3.16.2 Most taxis are either private hire where they are booked in advance, or taxis which are used

when needed either from a taxi stand or hailed in the street. The most likely users are those

who do not have access to a car. Taxis can provide an important form of transport for those

without cars meaning that it is important that there are reliable options available for

residents especially when there are restrictions on car ownership. Taxis are especially

popular for leisure purposes including evenings out on Fridays and Saturdays.

3.16.3 LiftShare also operate a taxi sharing database allowing taxi journey matching similar to car

sharing schemes. This resource can be used by individuals and companies. The most

common uses are to travel to or from work, the airport or hospitals.

TH - Example Practices

3.16.4 Up to a third of taxis were single occupancy in 1997/9 with an average occupancy of 2.2

people per taxi. A taxi sharing scheme at Paddington railway station has been successful

with limited operating hours between 08:30am and 10:30am on weekdays. Marshals are

used to organise people into destination sharing opportunities. Taxi sharers are given

preferential access to available taxis and pay a reduced fare rate. There are no available

figures on the use of such schemes or their possible impact on reducing the number of taxi

trips made.

TH - Cost of implementation

3.16.5 Low costs of using taxis for occasional travel since most taxis are already established as are

the checks in place to monitor them. Higher costs would be involved with a taxi sharing

scheme that involves marshals to organise people but costs would be lower with the

TaxiShare system (by LiftShare) since it is free to use for members of the public and has a

limited fixed cost with small additional maintenance for business use.



Table 3-16 Summary of Characteristics of Taxi Hire

Cost to LB Brent Taxi share scheme medium cost due to marshal requirements. General

taxis low cost as most already established

National Likely low, although where taxis are used due to reduced car ownership

some reduction in car trips is likely

London wide

West London

Impact

Brent

To User Taxi share schemes are cheaper and marginally quicker. Using the

occasional taxi is cheaper than owning a car

Added

Value

Benefits To Community Possibly more taxis available adding another travel option

Pros Alternative to owning a car and more efficient use of vehicles

Cons Limited impacts and hard to monitor

3.17 Conclusions

3.17.1 Wembley has two major advantages in terms of Smarter Travel\TDM measures that may

provide greater than normal modal shift away from car journeys at the site: it is a

substantially new development and it’s location

3.17.2 New Development: As a new development, it is possible to implement measures from

point of (and sometime even before) occupation of the site. This takes advantage of the

‘Change Opportunity’ that people go through when making major life changes and will allow

the individuals and organisations to consider other travel options before set patterns of

behaviour have been established. There is also the possibility of designing and building in the

complementary measures and infrastructure that enable these choices to be easier for the

individual and the organisation to make. These two issues are likely to result in higher than

normal modal shift results.

3.17.3 Location: London as whole has been successfully implementing smarter measures on a

relative large scale over the last 3 -5 years and West London has played a leading role in this

and has been particularly proactive and successful in implementing several areas of Smarter

Travel. The WESTRANS Sub region is one of London’s most successful regional partnerships

in terms of Smarter Travel Implementation and innovation and is well resourced. The area is

also, in relative terms compared to the rest of the UK, very well served by public transport

and alternatives to car journeys are a realistic option for many journeys.

Potential Impact

3.17.4 Using the information from the DfT’s Smarter Choices – Changing the Way We Travel

document and other relevant information including iTRACE and TfL monitoring statistics, the



potential for the different measures are shown in the table below. The factors that result in

high or medium potential are those that are most worthwhile following up.

Table 3-17 Overall potential impact of TDM measures

Potential Impact Potential Cost TDM Measure

Case study results

Average

Local Figures Overall

effect

Case study

results

Overall

cost

Overall

potential

for Brent

Workplace

Travel Planning 0-35% reduction in car

use observed with 14%

average (12% London

average)

High:

West London

Borough 25%

Average: 17%

West London

High

0.5 to 1.0

pence/

vehicle km

cut

Low High

School Travel

Planning

4-20% reduction in car

use possible High:

West London

Borough

15.5%

Average: 9%

observed in

West London

Med 2.9 or 5.4

pence/

vehicle km

cut on

average

Med to

high

Medium

Personal Travel

Planning

In urban areas 7% to

15% reduction in car

use

High: 12%

London wide

Average: 6%

London wide

Med Average 2.2

pence/

vehicle km

cut

Med Med

Car Sharing Mileage reduction of

0.6% or 11% 10% reduction

in member car

use

Med Average 2

pence/

vehicle km

cut

Low to

med

Med

Area Based

Travel Planning

NA NA

Med to

high

Med Med

Car Clubs DfT suggest 0.3% to

0.6% reduction in

mileage. Case study

suggests 3% to 16%

possible where

implemented

Low to

med

5 pence/

vehicle km

cut on

average

High Low to

Med

Cycle Hire

Schemes

Paris example suggests

most users switch from

taxi, public transport

and walk not car use

Low High initial

outlay with

ongoing

running and

maintenanc

e

High Low

Flexible hours/

teleworking

Teleworking can reduce

car mileage 3% to 12%

Med Low cost to

borough

Low Med



Potential Impact Potential Cost TDM Measure

Case study results

Average

Local Figures Overall

effect

Case study

results

Overall

cost

Overall

potential

for Brent

since

private

investment

needed

Off-peak

servicing

Low Med Low

Real Time PT

opportunities

0.6% to 2.6%

reduction in mileage for

London

Low to

med

4.25 pence/

vehicle km

cut on

average

High Low

Car free

development

Low to

med

Med Low

Home Delivery 70% to 80% reduction

in grocery miles for

users. Nottingham trial

72% reduction in car

mileage for local post

office collection

Low to

med

(high for

users)

Mostly

private

investment

needed.

Relatively

low cost of

Nottingham

collection

trial

Low Low

Taxi Hire

scheme

Low Low Low

3.17.5 The results from the above summary tables are plotted on the graph below. From this

information the factors most worthwhile following up for Brent include; Area Based Travel

planning as a mix of Workplace, School and Personal Travel Planning; Car Sharing schemes,

car clubs; and flexible working hours/ teleworking.



Impacts and Costs of TDM measure based on mean average numbers

Workplace TP

School TP

Personal TP

Car Share

Area Based TP

Car Clubs

Flex Hours/telework

Home Delivery

Cycle HireOff-peak Servicing

Real Time publicity

Car Free DevelopmentTaxi Hire

Cost of Measure (pence)

Impa

ct o

f Mea

sure

(% re

duct

ion

in c

ar u

se)

Most worthwhile

Lo Hig

Lo

Hig

Figure 3.3 Impacts and Costs of TDM measure based on mean average numbers

Note: the figures used where a variation in figures are given are the average of the two

figures. Where there were no figures available an arbitrary figure was used to represent the

impact or cost level (high, medium or low). For car clubs it is important to note that the

impact on members is an average annual mileage reduction of 30% but the small number of

schemes leads to a low potential impact.

3.17.6 As indicated, the Impacts and Costs of TDM Measures graph above shows some clear

winners in terms of greatest impact versus cost of implementation. The Wembley site shows

promising opportunities for some of the TDM Smarter Travel measures that provide greater

reduction in car usage. However this does not mean that the other smarter measures should

be ruled out, especially if there is a desire amongst the Local authority developers and the

community to greater reduce traffic at the site.

3.17.7 It is also fair to say that large scale implementation of multiple smarter measures within a

community is likely to magnify the result of these measures and create a result which is

greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, the fostering of a sustainable and traffic

reduced community at this site may provide better results for some of the less effective

Smarter Travel Measures than has been previous been reported. Studies have shown that

individuals and organisations that have already experienced change are more willing and

able to adopt other changes to their behaviour, for instance a car driver who has changed to

PT usage, is more likely to be open to the concept of trying cycling and walking, if they can

see the possible advantage to them.

3.17.8 Other factors that could influence the mix of Smarter Travel measures implemented may go

beyond that of the motivator of traffic reduction. To this end we have highlighted the

characteristic of each measure in the findings this will allow the authority to consider other

factors such as: health, environment, community and management of Passenger Transport

usage that may have an influencing factor in the final decision.



3.17.9 We recommend that the most worthwhile measures to take forward would include the more

established main Smarter Travel Modes:

Workplace;

School;

Area Based and Personal Travel Planning;

Car clubs;

and Smart\Flexible Working.

3.17.10 This is due to their likelihood to reduce car journeys and mode shift at site. In addition, Car

Clubs would be advisable due also to the ability to reduce the need for car ownership. We

would suggest that the best approach to Smarter\ Flexible Working would be to insist it is

explored as a component part of any Workplace Travel Plan at the site and that other

complementary measures such as Car Sharing and limited parking. Car free development,

although difficult to enforce and monitor in their own right, would provide a very

complementary aspect to the other Main Smarter Travel Measures and could lead to those

measures increasing their mode shift away from car.

3.17.11 When scaling the impact of Smarter Travel Measures it is important to remember the

timescale for any Smarter Travel measure which is typically two – five years from

implementation to audited results of long term behaviour change. Unfortunately more

detailed year on year impact is not readily available at this point.

Travel Demand Forecasting

The estimated impact of the TDM measures has been taken forward as input to the Wembley

Transport Assessment Model (TAM, see Chapter 4). From the research presented here, the

TDM interventions are estimated to reduce the total trips per person per year by 1% for

Stages 1 and 2, and 2% for Stages 3 and 4 reflecting increased home working, and internet

shopping etc. Based on the trip generation databases of observed activity, trip rates for non-

residential uses have been reduced by 1% for Stages 1 and 2, and 2 % for Stages 3 and 4.

Lastly, and most significantly, the mode share for residential trips has shifted by 9% from

car in Stages 1 and 2, and by 15% in Stages 3 and 4. This reflects the likely ‘lag’ in reaching

the full impact of the TDM interventions.

3.1 Deliverability

3.1.1 The existing Travel Plan prepared by developers Quintain makes a number of commitments

and describes a range of measures to be developed and implemented in support of the Stage

1 development, many of which have been mentioned here, including; general measures to

support sustainable travel (walking, cycling etc), journey planning and the creation of a City

Car Club. The TP also mentions related S106 commitments to public transport

improvements. Naturally, the TP is welcomed as evidence of a positive commitment to

sustainable transport, but typical of TPs at this stage in the planning process (i.e. prior to

substantial occupation), then further detailed TP specification is generally absent in terms of

operation, implementation and performance targets. Overall, that approach is consistent with

the TDM performance level assumed within our earlier Masterplan delivery report (WMTSR).



3.1.2 The measures, approach and performance of the TDM measures described within this

chapter have been set in the wider context of further consideration of; related bus and

highway corridor improvements, the Masterplan period to 2026, and the added TDM

performance benefits we may expect from the weaving-in of TDM within the Masterplan

area’s fabric and community based on research undertaken. It is those enhanced

performance benefits that have been taken forward as inputs to the Transport Assessment

Model (TAM) re-run.

3.1.3 As described earlier in this chapter, that research captures the best intelligence and

experience from what is an emerging field, that is influencing and managing travel behaviour

and demand. As such, in going forward from this point, further more detailed take place to:

Obtain primary data from emerging best practice and specifically comparable schemes

to establish a baseline and more accurate predictions of mode shift, this would also

provide a set of best practice case studies and lessons learnt that would assist the

London Borough of Brent in ensuring that Smarter and Sustainable Travel are locked

into the Wembley development;

Fully examine and describe the required detailed specification of what would be

necessary to ensure that the Smarter Travel Measures are implemented in a successful

manner that achieves maximum mode shift;

Conduct a comprehensive Sustainable Transport Audit to understand how and where

complementary infrastructure measures could be placed within and adjacent to the

Masterplan area to support the Smarter Measures;

Provide advice and detailed specification on the funding of the measures, including the

specification of drafting planning obligation to ratchet financial support for these

measures and fully explore funding opportunities outside the direct scope of the

council’s known opportunities.

3.1.4 Smarter Travel initiatives done well may deliver substantial rewards. But these returns do

not bear a linear relationship to implementation effort. Executed without sufficient will,

enthusiasm, or vigour, the returns may be some considerable way below expectations. We

recommend therefore that the Council follow a purposeful and proactive course in further

developing the Masterplan delivery by preparing a further and more detailed TDM delivery

strategy and action plan. That work would provide the necessary strategic approach to plan

for maximum TDM effectiveness in best planning, land use, complementary transport

infrastructure, planning controls and funding opportunities.


4 Travel Demand Forecasting

4.1 Transport Assessment Model

4.1.1 Building on the earlier WMTSR study, the Wembley Transport Assessment Model (TAM) has

been re-run with new transport mode share inputs reflecting the bus and TDM strategies and

interventions described in earlier chapters. It is an in-house spreadsheet-based model

prepared for the purpose of enabling rapid and cost effective assessment of major mixed use

developments.

4.1.2 The Wembley Model incorporates the following elements:

Forecasts of movements to/from each individual land use (Trip Generation);

A representation of where trips are coming from and going to (Trip Distribution);

A forecast of the number of trips by transport mode; car bus, rail, tube walk, and cycle

(Mode share); and

A representation of car based trips on the local road network (Traffic Assignment).

4.1.3 The model also accounts for internal trips, linked trips, and parking restraint. It has been

adjusted to represent the unique travel behaviour associated with the large proportion of

hotels, bars, and restaurants in the Masterplan area. It applied the same land use

assumptions and likely development schedule as assumed for the November 2008 report.

4.1.4 The findings and conclusions of the bus strategy and TDM interventions tasks were then

analysed and prepared for input to the Wembley TAM Model to provide a new set of traffic

forecasts reflecting the improved bus provision and implementation TDM measures. This

involved re-running the model with a revised set of travel mode share assumptions.

4.1.5 The revised model was then evaluated to incorporate the strategies addressed in Chapters 2

and 3. The key model outputs include:

Trips by public transport, on foot and by bicycle;

AM and PM peak traffic flows.

4.2 Model Outputs

Generated and attracted trips

4.2.1 The overall trips generated decreases by less than 1% in Stage 4 due to travel demand

measures. The total movements generated during the AM and PM peaks assuming strategy

incentives are 14,350 trips in Stage 1 and 18,150 Trips in Stage 4.

4.2.2 In Stage 1, approximately half of the trips occur during the AM and PM peaks; whereas in

Stage 4, nearly 60% of trips are made during the AM peak periods. This is most likely due

to the nature of the development planned leading up to 2026, with a greater number of

dwellings and business facilities.



0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Stage 1 Baseline Stage 1 With Bus Strategy &TDM


Trip

s G

ener

ated

PMAM

Figure 4.1 Total trips generated

Mode Shares

4.2.3 With the transport incentives applied, there is an overall modal shift towards non-car

transport modes by 3137 trips in the AM and PM peaks in Stage 1 and 2187 trips in Stage 4

compared to existing conditions. The precise mode shares vary by time of day and by stage

of development.

4.2.4 The baseline (present conditions and infrastructure as in 2008) modal split is relatively good

at 37:63. The modal split assuming the effect of the transport interventions outlined in the

Masterplan is 33:67. With the strategic interventions, the car/non-car modal split is 24:76

in Stage 4. Overall, a potential of a 13% shift towards public transport, cycling and walking

is available assuming bus strategy and travel demand measures are implemented.

4.2.5 Figures 4.2 and 4.3 present the baseline and modal share with proposed strategy incentives.



Figure 4.2 Stage 1 mode split

Figure 4.3 Stage 4 Mode split

4.2.6 A significant shift is the proportion of trips utilising bus, rail and tube. Previously in Stage 1,

24% of trips generated were using bus during the AM and PM peaks. With the

implementation of bus strategy and TDM measures the modal share shifts to 27% upon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



AM AM PM PM

Mod

e Sh

are

TubeCycleWalkRailBusCar

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



AM AM PM PM

Mod

e Sh

are

TubeCycleWalkRailBusCar



completion of Stage 1 and Stage 4 which increases the demand for bus by over 400 trips in

the AM and PM peaks.

4.2.7 Rail and tube also gained modal share in both Stages of development. Total rail demand

anticipated to increase by 437 and 327 during peak periods in the Stages 1 and 4,

respectively. Tube demand is expected to increase by 1021 trips in the Stage 1 and 793

trips in the Stage 4. The percentage change for Stage 1 and Stage 4 is presented in Table

4.1 and 4.2 below.

Table 4-1 Stage 1 Percentage change from baseline

Stage 1 Car Bus Rail Walk Cycle Tube Total

AM -19.6% 49.2% 115.2% 9.7% 2.5% 99.5% 17.0%

PM -28.3% 61.8% 82.8% 16.8% 7.8% 66.9% 10.9%

Total -24.6% 54.9% 95.5% 12.3% 4.4% 79.5% 13.9%

Table 4-2 Stage 4 Percentage change from baseline

Stage 4 Car Bus Rail Walk Cycle Tube Total

AM -32.2% 23.3% 43.0% -2.8% -5.4% 37.4% -0.6%

PM -40.0% 40.2% 46.8% -3.3% -5.6% 40.8% -0.4%

Total -36.0% 30.0% 45.0% -3.0% -5.5% 39.2% -0.5%

4.2.8 The slight decrease in cycle and walking trips reflect more trips being made by internal bus

routes and the shift in land uses.

Vehicular traffic

4.2.9 Even with a 10% mode shift away from car modes, the volume of vehicular traffic is still

significant. Approximately 2000 to 2600 trips will be generated depending on time of day,

stage of development and scenario considered.

4.2.10 The most significant increased in traffic flow will impact the following junctions along the

Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way corridor.

Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road;

Wembley Hill Road/South Way;

Fulton Rd/ Empire Way; and

Empire Way/Engineers Way.

4.2.11 Individual link and junction impacts will be discussed in Chapter 5 of this report. The results

of the traffic assignment process are included in the Appendix for base and cumulative

resultant traffic (assuming strategy implementation).


5 Highway Corridor Impact

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This Chapter details the design and modelling work undertaken on the Wembley Corridor to

provide an understanding of the scale and nature of junction modifications required to

accommodate the increased Masterplan-related traffic flows but in the context of a road

network consistent with a high quality environment for all road users and visitors to the area.

5.1.2 The preliminary designs presented have been developed with the wider Masterplan’s

objectives in mind throughout, and also with a view to the parallel work streams developing

a bus strategy and travel demand management strategy. Both require that the layouts

afford convenient and safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and buses consistent with the

overall aim of encouraging use of sustainable modes, maximising access to the Masterplan

area, and contributing to a convivial and attractive environment.

5.2 The Highway Corridor

5.2.1 The Wembley corridor includes, from north to south, the following sections; Bridge Road

(A4089); Empire Way (A479); Wembley Park Drive; and Wembley Hill Road (A479).

5.2.2 The Highway Authority for the road included in the corridor is the London Borough of Brent

(LBB). However, the corridor links to the north with Forty Avenue (A4088) and to the south

with High Road and Harrow Road (A404), which are both on the TLRN and if taken forward

for subsequent detailed design development, the proposals would also need to be discussed

with Transport for London.

5.2.3 The major junctions within the corridor are, from north to south:

Forty Avenue / Forty Lane / Bridge Road junction;

Wembley Park Drive/ North End Road junction;

The Wembley Park Drive / Empire Way gyratory;

Empire Way / Fulton Road junction

Empire Way / Engineers Way junction;

The Empire Way / Wembley Hill Road gyratory

Wembley Hill Road / South Way / Mostyn Avenue junction;

Wembley Hill Road / High Road / Harrow Road.

5.3 Methodology

5.3.1 The current layout of the junctions listed in paragraph 5.2.3 have been modified with a view

to achieve a better balance between the different needs of road users and to accommodate,

where possible and appropriate, the additional flows generated by the proposed Masterplan

redevelopment.

5.3.2 The estimated flows generated during Stage 1 and Stage 4 of the Masterplan have been



added to the background flows in order to have an indication of junction performance at the

end of the first and final stage of the Masterplan implementation. Owing to the variation in

land use type, scale, location and its related movement activity over the course of the

Masterplan period, plus the ‘lag‘ associated with bus and TDM interventions in reaching full

effectiveness, the worst case for the highway network varies within and between

development Stages. Therefore results are presented for Stages 1 and 4. A summary table

for the modelling outputs for each junction is included for both those Stages traffic volumes.

In general the Stage 1 volumes produce the worst case results.

5.3.3 Junction performance under the proposed layouts has been estimated using, as deemed

appropriate, the LINSIG or TRANSYT signal design suites.

5.3.4 The council have indicated that degrees of saturation (DoS) of up to 95% would be

appropriate in determining acceptable junction performance. On locations where this

threshold would be exceeded, we have provided an indication of the flow reductions would be

necessary in order to reduce the maximum DoS to acceptable levels.

5.3.5 The layout and performance of each junction is discussed in turn with the proposed junction

design drawings included at the end of the Chapter.

5.4 Forty Avenue / Forty Lane / Bridge Road Junction

5.4.1 Two options have been considered for this junction; Option 1 is very similar to the current

arrangement, with Option 2 that converting Barn Way from two-way operation to a one-way

northbound arrangement.

Option 1 – All existing movements permitted

5.4.2 The only major change from the existing arrangement is to formalise the observed on-street

parking on Forty Avenue that blocks and leaves redundant the nearside lane on the three

lane western arm approach. For the proposed arrangement the existing nearside lane has

been removed and kerbside parking provided in its place leaving two traffic lanes. This

change reflects an ongoing council scheme being implemented on site at the time of writing.

5.4.3 Minor changes have been made to the signal staging arrangement, but the existing layout

has been found to be the most suitable to accommodate the predicted vehicle volumes whilst

maintaining all existing vehicle movements within the current highway constraints.

5.4.4 The modelling results for a 90s cycle time are summarised in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 below. For

the Stage 4 flows the junction would operate with all arms within the 95% DoS threshold.

However, for the Stage 1 flows Forty Avenue and Forty Lane are both at the 95% threshold

in the PM peak and Bridge Road just exceeds the threshold at 96%.



Table 5-1 Forty Avenue/ Bridge Rd Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Forty Ave - Left/ Ahead 49 8 60 10

Forty Ave - Right 82 7 95 12

Barn Hill – Left/ Ahead 63 4 48 3

Forty Lane - Ahead 77 15 95 23

Forty Lane – Left 84 22 69 14

Bridge Rd - Ahead/ Right 70 15 96 29

Bridge Rd - Left 45 5 53 6


AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)



Barn Hill – Left/ Ahead 62 4 48 3





Option 2 – Barn Hill converted to one-way northbound

5.4.5 The second option at the Forty Avenue/ Bridge Road junction converts Barn Hill from two-

way to one-way northbound operation which we understand from the council to be an

acceptable proposal in principle though further local traffic management examination may be

required to verify this. No vehicles will be able to join the junction from Barn Hill. The



southbound traffic volume on Barn Hill is relatively low with 113 vehicles in the AM peak hour

and 88 in the PM peak.

5.4.6 The removal of Barn Hill from the signal staging at the junction results in the junction

operating in 3 stages as opposed to 4. This enables signal green time to be reallocated from

Barn Hill to the remaining 3 arms which provides additional capacity to these approaches.

5.4.7 Except for the conversion of Barn Hill to one-way operation and the associated changes to

the signal staging the overall design of the junction for Option 2 is identical to Option 1.

5.4.8 The modelling results for a 90s cycle time are summarised in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. The

additional capacity provided by the removal of Barn Hill results in the junction performing

well within capacity for Stage 1 and Stage 4 flows. The maximum predicted DoS is 88% for

the Stage 1 flows in the PM peak.

5.4.9 If Option 2 is progressed further the removal and redistribution of southbound traffic from

Barn Hill will need to be considered in the wider context of the local area road network to the

north of Forty Avenue.


AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)










AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)







5.5 Wembley Park Drive / North End Road

5.5.1 At present there is no vehicular access between North End Road and Wembley Park Drive.

As part of an ongoing feasibility study two options are being considered to provide a

connection of North End Road to Wembley Park Drive.

5.5.2 The current scheme proposals provide the connection via an all movement signal junction.

The new junction will require the existing southbound bus stop on Wembley Park Drive to be

extended southwards. The bus stop will be 35m in length with capacity for 2 standard 12m

long buses which we consider necessary due to the bus frequency of 26 bph in peak times at

this location.

5.5.3 The designs will require the relocation of an existing pedestrian refuge across Wembley Park

Drive immediately north of the junction with Brook Avenue. The main difference in the two

proposed designs is the provision of a staggered crossing as part of the junction on the

southern arm of Wembley Park Drive to replace the crossing facility or, more simply,

relocating the refuge to the south of Brook Avenue.

5.5.4 The existing taxi bay on the northbound carriageway of Wembley Park Drive remains at its

current location, but due to the need for 2 southbound lanes on the approach to the junction

the northbound bus lane would start immediately north of the Pelican crossing outside of the

station.

5.5.5 Of the two options, the layout that includes for a signalled pedestrian crossing on the

western arm of Bridge Road will have a slightly lower operational performance compared to

the option without the crossing. This is due to the increased setback of the signal stop line

on the western approach of Bridge Road to accommodate the pedestrian crossing and

resulting higher intergreen values at the junction. For the purpose of this study the analysis

presented is for the option with the signal crossing and is therefore a worst case analysis.



The results of the analysis are contained in Tables 5.5 and 5.6 below.

5.5.6 For Stage 1 and Stage 4 flows in both the AM and PM peaks the junction operates with all

arms below a 95% degree of saturation (DoS) threshold for a 90s cycle time. The maximum

DoS is 92% in the PM peak on the northern approach of Bridge Road for the Stage 1 flows.

Table 5-5 North End Rd/ Bridge Rd Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Bridge Rd North – Ahead 66 11 92 16

Bridge Rd North - Left 71 13 43 6

North End Rd – Left/ Right 71 7 90 11

Bridge Rd South – Ahead 63 10 84 13

Bridge Rd South - Right 10 <1 13 <1

Table 5-6 North End Rd/ Bridge Rd Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Bridge Rd North – Ahead 66 11 83 15

Bridge Rd North - Left 73 12 37 5

North End Rd – Left/ Right 74 7 83 9

Bridge Rd South – Ahead 61 9 76 12

Bridge Rd South - Right 8 <1 16 <1

5.6 The Wembley Park Drive / Empire Way gyratory

5.6.1 The existing triangular gyratory system includes a petrol station within the central island.

The gyratory currently acts as a bus turnaround facility for terminating northbound services.

The existing provision of pedestrian facilities at the gyratory is poor and the gyratory itself is

a barrier to more direct north-south walking routes.

5.6.2 With a view to enhancing the local public realm and improving pedestrian facilities the



gyratory has been redesigned as a signal controlled T-junction with the complete removal of

the petrol station. Depending on the configuration of the T-junction it is possible to provide

the public realm space either adjacent to Wembley Park Drive or Empire Way.

5.6.3 It is considered that access and egress movements between Wembley Park Drive and the

retail park to the north of the exiting gyratory would be facilitated by the introduction of

traffic signals. The new signals would be linked to signals at the Wembley Park Drive /

Empire Way junction. A model of this arrangement has not been developed at this stage due

to flow data for the access road not being available. However it is anticipated that, due to the

low traffic activity along the access road, the proposed signalisation should not disrupt traffic

movements along Wembley Park Drive.

Option 1 – Public Realm adjacent to Empire Way

5.6.4 For an arrangement with the public realm space adjacent to Empire Way a segregated bus

lane is provided from Wembley Park Drive to Empire Way. This will bypass the junction for

southbound buses and reduce journey times and will also provide the U-turn facility for

northbound buses. There is also an opportunity to introduce a new southbound bus stop

within this bus lane affording improved accessibility to the existing retail park.

5.6.5 In order to enhance pedestrian facilities, single phase crossings have been introduced on

each approach arm and incorporated within the signal staging of the junction.

5.6.6 Whilst all of the movements operate below the 95% threshold in both the AM and PM peaks

(Tables 5.7 and 5.8) for an 80s cycle time, the predicted queue for the right turn from

Empire Way is 19 PCUs in the PM for the Stage 1 flows which would block back to the

upstream junction of Empire Way / Fulton Road. Linking the signals between the Wembley

Park Drive/ Empire Way and Empire Way/ Fulton Road junctions would manage the

progression of vehicles and the build up of queues and is recommended at this location due

to the short distance between junctions (approximately 50m).

5.6.7 As an alternative to linking the junctions, a second version of the layout has been tested this

allows traffic on Empire Way northbound to turn right from the two lanes provided on this

approach. This in turn requires that the junction exit be widened to two lanes, thus reducing

the land that could potentially be used for redevelopment/ public realm. All queues would be

contained within the storage capacity of the corresponding links.



Table 5-7 Wembley Park Drive/ Empire Way Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis

Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Wembley Pk Drive South –

Ahead/Right

56 6 86 11

Wembley Pk Drive North – Ahead 36 4 24 2

Wembley PK Drive North - Left 43 6 29 4

Empire Way – Left 14 2 23 3

Empire Way - Right 52 9 84 19

Table 5-8 Wembley Park Drive/ Empire Way Option 1 Summary of LINSIG Analysis

Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Wembley Pk Drive South –

Ahead/Right

53 5 86 10

Wembley Pk Drive North – Ahead 37 4 26 2

Wembley PK Drive North - Left 43 6 28 3

Empire Way – Left 17 2 25 3

Empire Way - Right 55 8 84 16

Option 2 – Public Realm adjacent to Wembley Park Drive

5.6.8 To provide the public realm space adjacent to Wembley Park Drive an arrangement that is

effectively a mirror image of Option 1 would be required. This would provide for Empire Way

as the main line flow with Wembley Park Drive joining at a signalised T-junction.

5.6.9 The arrangement would need to accommodate a bus turnaround facility for northbound

terminating bus services and also need to ensure that the existing retail frontages on



Wembley Park Drive could be adequately serviced. An arrangement that provides a

combined bus turnaround and servicing route would be the most desirable to maximise the

available public realm space.

5.6.10 For the Stage 1 and Stage 4 flows the heaviest vehicle movements are the ahead

movements on the north and southbound approaches of Empire Way. The arrangement in

Option 2 that provides for these movements as the main line flow is more suitable than

Option 1 that requires two right angled turns for the north-south movements to negotiate in

the immediate junction vicinity.

5.6.11 Option 2 has not been tested with LINSIG but it is considered that with an arrangement that

provides a simpler route for the heaviest vehicle movements the results for Option 2 would

be better than for Option 1.

5.7 Empire Way / Fulton Road junction

5.7.1 The existing signal junction arrangement does not permit the right turn movement from

Empire Way northbound to Fulton Road. The proposed arrangement allows the right turn

and therefore increases accessibility to the Wembley Stadium locality. It is assumed that

20% of the estimated traffic demand will turn right into Fulton Road.

5.7.2 The two lane approach on the northbound carriageway retains the existing nearside bus lane

that extends to the signal stop line. The offside lane accommodates both ahead and right

turning vehicles with a right turn storage area located within the junction to allow right

turning traffic to wait without blocking the ahead movement. The modelling has shown that

the storage area can accommodate the estimated demand of the right turn without blocking

the ahead movement. However, due to the right turn movement being new and the

assumed volume of traffic making this turn not being based on observed values it must

therefore include a larger margin of error than with other movements. If the volume of right

turning traffic becomes considerably higher than that tested it may be necessary to stop the

northbound bus lane short of the stop line to enable general traffic to use the nearside lane

for the ahead movement and the offside lane for the right turn.

5.7.3 With a cycle time of 90 seconds the LINSIG analysis shows that all movements operate

below the 95% threshold for both Stage 1 and Stage 4 traffic flows. The maximum DoS of

82% occurs on the southern arm of Empire Way during the PM peak for Stage 1 flows.



Table 5-9 Fulton Road/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Empire Way South – Ahead/

Right

57 10 82 20

Empire Way North Left/ Ahead 66 13 49 8

Fulton Road – Right/ Left 23 1 57 3

Table 5-10 Fulton Road/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Empire Way South – Ahead/

Right

52 9 74 17

Empire Way North Left/ Ahead 65 13 44 7

Fulton Road – Right/ Left 24 1 55 3

5.8 Empire Way / Engineers Way junction

5.8.1 The existing three arm junction arrangement does not include pedestrian crossing facilities

on Empire within the main junction itself. A separate remote crossing facility on Empire Way

is provided approximately 40m south of the Engineers Way junction.

5.8.2 The proposals remove the existing remote crossing to the south of the junction and provide a

single phase crossing on Empire way within the main junction on the southern arm.

Staggered crossings are provided on the northern arm of Empire Way and on Engineers Way.

5.8.3 Consideration was given to providing two southbound ahead traffic lanes on Empire Way to

increase the capacity of the junction. However, the presence of a large BT chamber on the

southbound exit of Empire Way and the associated complication and the likely substantial

cost involved in its relocation resulted in the two lane option being discounted at this time.

5.8.4 A left turn flare on the southbound arm of Empire Way has been provided to improve overall

junction performance. Linsat software has been used to ensure the effective usable flare



length has been tested in the LINSIG model.

5.8.5 The proposed layout was tested in LINSIG with a cycle time of 90 seconds. All movements

operated within capacity with the maximum DoS of 81% on the northern approach of Empire

Way during the PM peak for Stage 1 flows.

Table 5-11 Engineers Way/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Empire Way North- Left/ Ahead 70 12 81 15

Engineers Way - Right 64 6 71 7

Engineers Way – Left 70 9 79 12

Empire Way South – Right 58 7 70 9

Empire Way South - Ahead 36 6 46 8

Table 5-12 Engineers Way/ Empire Way Summary of LINSIG Analysis Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Empire Way North- Left/ Ahead 68 12 74 13

Engineers Way - Right 66 5 63 5

Engineers Way – Left 66 8 72 10

Empire Way South – Right 61 8 56 7

Empire Way South - Ahead 32 5 42 7

5.9 The Empire Way / Wembley Hill Road Gyratory

5.9.1 The existing proposals by developer Quintain for the Empire Way / Wembley Hill Road

gyratory would not result in major modifications of the existing highway layout. Also, the

flow levels are considered compatible with the proposal. It is therefore anticipated that the



gyratory would operate satisfactorily under the Stage 1 and Stage 4 flows. As a result, a

model of the gyratory is not considered necessary as part of this assessment.

5.10 Wembley Hill Road / South Way / Mostyn Avenue junction

5.10.1 The junction of Wembley Hill Road with South Way is predicted to experience a considerable

increase in traffic volume at the completion of Stage 1 of the development proposals

particularly with vehicles entering and exiting South Way.

5.10.2 In the PM peak hour there are currently approximately 60 vehicles entering and 250 exiting

South Way. The Stage 1 flows identify approximately 517 vehicles entering and 723 exiting

in the PM peak which is an approximate 300% increase in traffic volume. It is considered

that, in order to accommodate the Stage 1 flows and provide for all turning movements

substantial upgrades are required.

5.10.3 These upgrades are largely dependent on the existing bridge over the railway to the south of

the junction being able to accommodate an additional traffic lane and the resulting increased

loading without the need for substantial strengthening. An initial assessment by specialist

consultants Giffords has concluded that the widening of the main carriageway onto the

existing footway structure to the east of the bridge would require bridge strengthening due

to the 3 tonne load capacity of this section of the bridge. Due to the cost and practicalities

of bridge strengthening we have considered two options; one with an additional traffic lane

over the bridge, and one without.

5.10.4 The junction is approximately 130m north of the junction of Wembley Hill Road with Harrow

Road. Due to the large increase in traffic in this section of the corridor and the proximity of

the two junctions a TRANSYT model has been built that includes both junctions. The

TRANSYT model allows the progression of vehicles and management of queues to be

considered at this location.

Option 1 – Additional traffic lane over the Bridge

5.10.5 Under this proposal, the southbound carriageway of Wembley Hill Road is converted to two

lanes on both the approach and the exit from the junction over the bridge. The approach

widening could be achieved by taking land from the plot opposite no. 34 Wembley Hill Road.

In order to introduce two lanes on the junction exit, the bridge over the railway line would

carry a total of four running lanes. A new pedestrian footbridge would be constructed over

the railway allowing one of the existing footways to be used as additional running

carriageway surface area subject to strengthening.

5.10.6 The carriageway on the South Way approach will be widened to include two lanes. In order

to achieve this, land from the vacant plot at the corner between South Way and Wembley

Hill Road will need to be utilised.

5.10.7 Staggered pedestrian crossing facilities are provided on South Way and the northern arm of

Wembley Hill Road. The existing junction arrangement does not include any signal controlled

crossing facilities.

5.10.8 The assessment of the proposed layout for a 90s cycle time indicates that the maximum DoS

would be 90% on the South Way right turn lane under Stage 1 flows during the PM peak.



The predicted queues would not block upstream junction in any modelled time period.

Table 5-13 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 1 Summary of TRANSYT

Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Wembley Hill Rd North – Left/

Ahead/ Right

51 17 56 19

South Way – Left 53 6 53 7

South Way – Right 73 6 90 13

Wembley Hill Rd South – Ahead 70 16 86 14

Wembley Hill Rd South - Right 46 5 85 11

Table 5-14 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 1 Summary of TRANSYT

Analysis Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)


Ahead/ Right

49 16 51 17





Option 2 – No additional traffic lanes over the Bridge

5.10.9 This option assumes that provision of an additional running lane over the bridge is not

feasible for either practical or financial reasons. If so, then the junction will be significantly

over capacity unless certain turning movements are restricted.



5.10.10 The arrangement for Option 2 bans the right turn from Wembley Hill Road to South Way for

all vehicles except local buses. Vehicles that wish to turn right into South Way will need to

continue northbound to the Wembley Hill Road/ Empire Way Gyratory. There they can either

perform a u-turn at the gyratory and then turns left from Wembley Hill Road into South Way,

or continue past the gyratory and use the Engineers Way junction to access the Wembley

Stadium area. This means that a single northbound lane can be provided over the bridge

(with a very short storage lane for buses) and two southbound lanes. Such an arrangement

will utilise the existing carriageway space over the bridge and will not increase the loading on

the structure.

5.10.11 For the purpose of this assessment and to ensure the consistency of traffic flows it has been

assumed that all right turning vehicles will perform a u-turn at the Empire Way gyratory and

turn left into South Way. The traffic flows have been adjusted accordingly for the South Way

junction.

5.10.12 The proposed arrangement provides a staggered crossing on South Way but there will be no

crossing facility across Wembley Hill Road. This is still an improvement on existing crossing

facilities at the junction as whole.

5.10.13 The results of the TRANSYT analysis are summarised in Tables 5.15 and 5.16 below. In both

the AM and PM peaks for Stage 1 and Stage 4 flows all movements operate below the 95%

DoS threshold with a 90s cycle time. The northbound ahead movement on Wembley Hill

Road is at 95% DoS in the PM peak for Stage 1 flows but the queue will not block back to the

upstream junction (The Triangle).

Table 5-15 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis

Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)


Ahead/ Right

52 18 57 21



Wembley Hill Rd Northbound –

Ahead

76 13 95 21

Wembley Hill Rd Northbound -

Right

13 0 15 0



Table 5-16 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of TRANSYT Analysis

Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)


Ahead/ Right

51 18 51 17





5.11 Wembley Hill Road / High Road / Harrow Road Junction (The Triangle)

5.11.1 The existing Wembley Hill Road / High Road / Harrow Road Junction, commonly known as

The Triangle, is an unusual layout. Whilst a central island is present, the junction does not

operate as a gyratory, as traffic is allowed to flow in both directions through the junction on

all approaches. The junction is currently congested during the morning and evening peak

periods with delays and long queues occurring mostly on the Harrow Road and High Road

approaches.

5.11.2 The proposals for this site aim to rationalise the layout through the removal of the central

island and the conversion to a more conventional signal controlled T junction layout. The

removal of the central island will also allow substantial footway widening and enhancement

of pedestrian facilities in an area lying along desired pedestrian route to Wembley Stadium.

5.11.3 Due to the amount of traffic currently using the junction and the flow increases generated by

the proposed developments included in the Wembley Masterplan, it was not considered

feasible to introduce straight across pedestrian facilities. As a result, the proposed layout

includes staggered pedestrian crossings on Harrow Road and Wembley High Road. A signal

controlled crossing is provided on Wembley Hill Road approximately 35m to the north of the

Triangle. This crossing lines up with the pedestrian bridge and desire line over the railway

line towards Wembley Stadium station. The crossing will be linked to the Triangle to the

south and to the junction with South Way to the north.

5.11.4 The proposed layout has been tested with TRANSYT as part of the assessment that included

the junction with South Way.

5.11.5 The modelling results (Tables 5.17 and 5.18) show that the junction would not be able to

service the estimated demand below the 95% saturation level threshold for the Stage 4 flows

in the AM peak (the worst case flows at this particular junction). A saturation level of 96% is



predicted on the southbound movement from Wembley Hill Road to Harrow Road. The

associated queue of 33PCUs would also exceed the 130m link storage capacity, however, a

more detailed review of the queue as reported in the following paragraph reveals that the

extent of the queue would not be as detrimental as might immediately appear.

Table 5-17 Wembley Hill Rd/ Harrow Rd (The Triangle) TRANSYT Analysis Stage 1

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Wembley Hill Rd North – Ahead 94 25 83 11

Wembley Hill Rd North – Right/

Ahead

64 8 87 13

Harrow Road – Left 54 9 47 7

Harrow Road – Right 56 10 74 16

Wembley High Road – Left/ Right 93 22 88 21

Table 5-18 Wembley Hill Rd/ Harrow Rd (The Triangle) TRANSYT Analysis Stage 4

AM PM Approach

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Degree of

Saturation

(%)

Queue

(PCUs)

Wembley Hill Rd North – Ahead 96 33 77 9

Wembley Hill Rd North – Right/

Ahead

67 8 82 11

Harrow Road – Left 54 9 43 6

Harrow Road – Right 59 12 63 13

Wembley High Road – Left/ Right 92 21 85 19

5.11.6 The queues predicted by TRANSYT are the mean-max back of queue location and so are

not necessarily solid lengths of stationary vehicles. A review of the predicted queue on the

southbound movement of Wembley Hill Road shows that the predicted queue is not a solid

length. Figure 5.1 below shows that the uniform queue on the southbound approach of

Wembley Hill Road throughout a 90s signal cycle. At the start of the signal green period the



queue is ten PCUs and, therefore, within the link storage capacity. The back of the queue

does extend once the traffic lights turn green but the front of queue has by then started to

disperse and clear the junction and the actual stationary queue length would be

approximately 1 PCU during this clearing period.

Figure 5.1 Wembley Hill Road S/B Uniform Queue Profile (AM peak)

Modelling Conclusions

5.11.7 The additional traffic volumes generated by the developments included in the Wembley

Masterplan will increase the pressure on the eight key junctions located on the study

corridor. The modelling has shown that for seven of the junctions a layout arrangement can

be provided that will accommodate the increased traffic below a 95% saturation threshold

whilst also providing pedestrian, cycling and bus facilities that are consistent with the

Masterplan’s wider objectives.

5.11.8 The junction on the southern end of the corridor, Wembley Hill Road/ Harrow Road/

Wembley High Road, carries high traffic volumes on each approach arm and is also a key

pedestrian route to Wembley Stadium. The modelling predicts a saturation level of 96% on

Wembley Hill Road southbound in the AM peak for the Stage 4 traffic flows. A reduction in

traffic volume of 1% would be required for the saturation levels to fall below the 95%

threshold at this junction.

5.12 Deliverability

5.12.1 As indicated in the earlier Wembley Masterplan Transport Strategy Review (WMTSR) report

there are existing committed highway improvements included within the section 106

Agreement of September 2004 for the Quintain the Stage 1 development for works to be

carried out by Quintain, and approved by the council, at the following junction locations:

Wembley Hill Road/Royal Route;

Empire Way/Engineers Way;

Empire Way/Stadium Way;



Empire Way/Lakeside Way;

Wembley Hill Road/Site 09;

Engineers Way/Wembley Park Boulevard;

Engineers Way/Olympic Way;

First Way;

Engineers Way/Site E01; and

Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way.

5.12.2 The works described included a commitment to provide traffic signal linking utilising SCOOT

on the Wembley Hill Road corridor, though not identifying a contribution to physical junction

improvement works. We note that in addition, a contribution of £550,000 was identified as

payable to Transport for London as a contribution to works at the A406 prior to occupation of

the western non-residential car parking, along with £100,000 payable to the council as a

traffic calming contribution in residential roads affected by the development works no later

than six months after occupation of 20,000 m2 of retail and/or leisure floorspace.

5.12.3 A separate S106 Agreement covers works in connection to the LDA Lands for an

improvement of the Wembley Hill Road/South Way junction with an intention for

improvement of the Wembley Hill Road/High Road junction.

5.12.4 Table 5.19 below provides a measure of costs associated to the junction designs presented in

this Report. It should be noted that these are first stage estimates based on preliminary

considerations and they are intended to provide an indicative cost comparison rather than

accurate and absolute values. More accurate estimates will be required once the design of

the preferred layouts is further refined and detailed utility surveys have been undertaken.

5.12.5 Given the indicative nature of the costings and the level of detail that the designs have

progressed to, a contingency has been added to the estimates for the delivery of a

completed scheme. This includes amongst others; land purchase and fees for the detailed

design stage.

5.12.6 Due to the proximity and operational relationship between the junctions of Wembley Hill

Road/ South Way and Wembley Hill Road/ Harrow Road (the Triangle) the combined costs

for the two junctions and associated works are presented. Two options have been costed;

one with the requirement for strengthening of the existing bridge over the railway and a new

pedestrian footbridge and one without strengthening or a new footbridge.



Table 5-19 Highway Corridor Cost Estimates

Indicative Cost Range Junction

Upto

£100k

£100k-

250k

£250k-

£0.5M

£0.5M-

£1M

Over

£1M

Forty Ave/Forty

Lane/Bridge Rd

x

Wembley Park

Dr/North End Way

x* (£4M)

Wembley Park Drive/

Empire Way

x*

Empire Way/Fulton Rd x*

Empire Way/

Engineers Way

x*

Empire Way/Wembley

Hill Rd Gyratory

x

Wembley Hill

Rd/South Way/ &

Wembley Hill Rd/High

Rd/ Harrow Rd

(with bridge

strengthening)

x* (£2.3M)

Wembley Hill

Rd/South Way/ &

Wembley Hill Rd/High

Rd/ Harrow Rd

(without bridge

strengthening)

x*

Note: * Requires land purchase


6 Strategy integration and implementation

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Our previous study for the council (WMTSR) estimated the present day ‘baseline mode split

as a relatively good car/non-car modal split at 37:63. We judged the modal split assuming

the effect of the transport interventions addressed in the Masterplan to rise by 4% to 33:67.

With the strategic bus and TDM interventions proposed within this report, we anticipate an

increase from the baseline figure of some 13% to a split of 24:76 by completion of Stage 4.

This chapter considers the optimum interventions required to deliver the Masterplan and how

the council may best move forward to further develop the optimum intervention package.

6.2 Movement Intervention Assessment Process

6.2.1 The process for determining the need, scope and contribution to mode share shift of

movement related interventions in terms of the highway corridor, bus strategy and TDM

interventions, is outlined by Figure 6.1 below. It is followed by a summary of the findings of

that process.

Figure 6.1 Movement Intervention Assessment

Initial Highway Corridor Assessment

6.2.2 The initial highway corridor assessment indicated that in general terms, if suitably modified,

then the junctions along the corridor would be expected to operate satisfactorily under

Masterplan development Stage 4 flow conditions as estimated by the TAM model for the

initial Masterplan delivery study (November 2008). Most were assessed as operating within

5% of junction operation saturation, a figure advised as acceptable by the council in this

appraisal context. Three junctions were though found to be over-saturated or exhibit vehicle

Highway Corridor

assessment

Bus Intervention

assessment

Travel Demand

Management

intervention assessment

Transport Assessment Model (re) assessment

Highway Corridor interventions re-assessment

• re-appraisal/re-design • performance assessment

Assessment of optimum Bus and TDM intervention package



queuing difficulties, Forty Avenue/Forty Lane/Bridge Road, Wembley Park Drive/Empire way

(vehicle queuing), and Wembley Hill Road/High Road/Harrow Road.

6.2.3 The headline results from that initial assessment were encouraging, pointing to real scope for

a positive role for the bus and TDM interventions in reducing estimated future traffic flows to

a level where those problematic junctions may operate satisfactorily without further

modification.

Bus and Travel Demand Intervention (TDM) Assessment

6.2.4 Similarly, both the bus and TDM assessment identified specific and general measures that

would offer the prospect of a significant mode shift from car-based movement to bus and

sustainable modes, or more specifically in the case of TDM, a reduction in the need to travel.

Highway Corridor Assessment - Reassessment

6.2.5 A review of the Highway Corridor Strategy and interventions then followed to identify where

any amendments of the infrastructure proposals might be appropriate to perhaps improve

performance, operation, or if appropriate, scale-back junction modifications (should flow

reductions permit). That work identified that only one junction, the Wembley Hill Road/

Harrow Road/ Wembley High Road remained cause for concern, though only marginally

beyond the 95% degree of saturation criteria at 98% rather than the set 95%.

6.2.6 In general terms though, the various junction amendments did not warrant particular

attention from the study team in terms of their likely impact, whether judged in terms of

their scale, visual impact, effect on bus priority needs, pedestrian and cyclist provision, or in

terms of their alignment with the wider Masterplan objectives.

Assessment of Optimum Bus and TDM Intervention Package

6.2.7 As indicated by the TAM re-run findings (Chapter 4), the bus and TDM interventions are

estimated to deliver very real benefits in reducing the need for travel and in terms of

encouraging a mode transfer from the car to sustainable transport modes They have been

found to deliver substantial traffic flow reductions of sufficient order to give comfort that

acceptable road junction operation will be possible along the western highway corridor given

the effective delivery of those interventions. Further design development of those highway

measures, particularly at the Wembley Hill Road/ Harrow Road/ Wembley High Road junction

when a small capacity shortfall has been found..

6.2.8 Naturally, some of the transport interventions will fall by the wayside for a variety of reasons

such as; cost, acceptability, practicality or political support during the course of the

Masterplan period. Some new and yet unforeseen interventions may though appear during

that time.. In compiling a robust and prioritised package of bus and TDM interventions, we

have assessed them using the comparative matrix presented overleaf.

Table 6-1 Movement intervention



Table 6.1 Movement

intervention

(Low/Medium/High)

Inte

rven

tio

n

ap

plica

bil

ity

Relian

ce o

n o

ther

inte

rven

tio

ns

Delivera

bilit

y

Co

st level

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o m

od

e

shif

t

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o

Mast

erp

lan

deli

very

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

tim

e

ho

rizo

n

(Sh

ort

\M

ed

ium

\Lo

ng

Overa

ll r

ati

ng

Bus Strategy Incentives

Legible bus route network H L H M M H S H

Bus frequency modifications H M M M H H M H

Bus priority measures H M M M H H M H

Public transport hubs H L H M H M M M

Interchange and stopping

facility enhancements

M L H L M L S M

Information dissemination H M H L M M S M

Branding & marketing M M M L M M M M

Travel demand interventions

Workplace Travel Planning H L H L H H M H

School Travel Planning M L H M/H M/H M M M

Personal Travel Planning M L M M M M M M

Car Sharing M M M M M M S M

Area based travel planning M L M M H M M M

Car clubs M M M H L/M M S L/M

Flexible working

hours/homeworking

H L H L M M S/M/L M

Cycle hire schemes L/M M L/M H L L M/L L

Off peak/overnight servicing M/H M L/M M L L M L

Real time PT opportunities M M M H L/M L/M M L

Car free home delivery M L M L L/M L/M S L

Taxi hire schemes M L H L L/M L S L



6.2.9 The matrix looks across all the identified interventions and assesses a variety of key

considerations:

Intervention applicability – an assessment of how widespread the intervention

application across the various Masterplan land uses;

Reliance on other interventions – a measure of dependence upon other interventions

being delivered;

Deliverability – the likelihood of the intervention being implemented;

Cost level;

Contribution to mode shift;

Contribution to Masterplan delivery;

Implementation time horizon (short\medium\long-term);

Overall rating – having considered all factors, an assessment of the priority for each

intervention.

6.2.10 Through green, amber, and red ratings ratings for each intervention (high, medium to low

performance/contribution), we see how they perform individually and may be judged to

perform collectively. The assessments for each intervention should be considered within that

strategy group only, that is, a bus strategy interventions effectiveness should not be

compared directly to that for a TDM intervention and vice-versa. From this assessment, and

consideration in earlier chapters of the anticipated order of contribution towards mode shift,

the further Table 6.2 below presents the various interventions in overall rating and

implementation priority order.

6.2.11 As indicated by the earlier research, major contributions to influencing travel behaviour and

encouraging sustainable mode choice, thereby minimising car use, are made by wholly

achievable measures such as bus priority measures and Workplace Travel Planning. As input

to the TAM model, these interventions played a major part in reducing resultant traffic flows,

along with, though to a lesser extent, the second (M rated), and third (L rated) order

measures.



Table 6-2 Intervention Contribution Rating and Priority

Priority Intervention Strategy Overall rating

1 Bus frequency modifications Bus H

2 Legible bus network Bus H

3 Workplace travel planning TDM H

4 Bus Priority Measures Bus H

5 Interchange and stopping facility

enhancements

Bus M

6 School travel planning TDM M

7 Area travel planning TDM M

8 Public transport hubs Bus M

9 Flexible working hours/homeworking TDM M

10 Information dissemination Bus M

6.3 Deliverability

6.3.1 Given the contribution offered by these measures, their likely deliverability, relevance and

conventional nature (notwithstanding the relative newness of the TDM measures), we are

confident that given the appropriate levels of active support, they will be able to deliver the

needed contribution towards; minimising the need for travel, encouraging sustainable mode

choice, minimising development related traffic flows and ultimately, delivering the

Masterplan in its entirety.

6.3.1 In the following, we consider deliverability issues relating to the bus, TDM and highways

corridor strategies in turn.

Bus Interventions

6.3.2 This strategy attempts to transform the broad measures imagined in the Masterplan into

realisable incentives and interventions. The measures presented a legible bus service

network convenient and appealing interchange, high level of service and frequency, and bus

priority measures provide for a significant modal shift towards bus use.

6.3.3 These incentives are implementable over the course of the Masterplan period, though a

coherent vision must be defined in order to deliver this strategy. For example, in that route

information is needed realise increased frequencies, in turn increased frequencies require



enhanced interchange facilities and bus priority, and so on.

6.3.4 The infrastructure and funding obligations implied are viewed as manageable, given the

current level of bus ridership in the area and that anticipated over the course of the

Masterplan period. An example of this is the Section 106 Agreement of September 2004 for

the Quintain Stage 1 development which includes a staged contribution of £1,750,000 for

bus route or other public transport measures, with the identification of a possible

contribution towards subsidising the provision of bus routes or other measures that may

benefit the development. Works were also included to the value of £50,000 resulting from

an approved bus infrastructure strategy.

6.3.5 The Quintain the Stage 1 development Agreement also included for a contribution of

£100,000 towards improvement works at Wembley Central Station, along with a contribution

of £1,615,000 to Transport for London for Wembley Park Station improvement works.

6.3.6 We should note that the operational planning of London’s bus services is a sophisticated

matter and amendments to services require detailed liaison with Transport for London,

London Buses.

TDM Interventions

6.3.7 Added to these, a Green Travel Plan (Travel Plan, TP) has been prepared and submitted by

developers Quintain in support of the Stage 1 development. The TP makes a number of

commitments and describes a range of measures to be developed and implemented in

support of the Stage 1 development, many of which have been mentioned within the TDM

work described within this report, along with related S106 commitments to public transport

improvements. As such, the TP is evidence of a positive commitment to sustainable

transport, though as to be expected of pre-occupation TPs, lacking in detail regarding TP

implementation and performance targets. In general terms, we have taken the likely

development Stage 1 TP performance as consistent with the TDM performance level assumed

within our earlier Masterplan delivery report (WMTSR).

6.3.8 In appraising the performance of the TDM strategy presented within this report, we have

placed their wider contribution in the context of further consideration and development of

related bus and highway corridor improvements, the Masterplan period to 2026, and the

added TDM performance benefits we may expect from the planned weaving-in of TDM within

the Masterplan area’s fabric and community based on research undertaken. It is those

enhanced performance benefits that have been taken forward as inputs to the Transport

Assessment Model (TAM) re-run (Chapter 4).

6.3.9 As described earlier in this chapter, that research captures the best intelligence and

experience from what is an emerging field, that is influencing and managing travel behaviour

and demand. As such, in going forward from this point in developing the Masterplan, further

and more detailed research would be beneficial to develop more accurate predictions of

mode shift. That work could fully examine and describe the required detailed specification of

what would be necessary to ensure that the Smarter Travel Measures are implemented in a

successful manner to achieve maximum mode shift. Along with that, a comprehensive

Sustainable Transport Audit would identify how and where complementary infrastructure

measures could be placed within and adjacent to the Masterplan area to support the Smarter

Measures.



6.3.10 The means of delivering TDM measures are, as to be expected, also emerging with this

comparatively new field. As with the commitment already secured for the Stage 1

development, the principle of TDM contributions is already established. However, the

mechanisms for funding, measuring, measuring and monitoring delivery of that commitment

generally require development and strengthening across London, and nationally. In the

context of this near unique opportunity for establishing a new community fully incorporating

TDM within the lives of those living, working and visiting the area, then further work would

be valuable in advising on the detailed specification on the funding of the measures,

including the specification of drafting planning obligation to ratchet financial support for

these measures and fully explore funding opportunities outside the direct scope of the

council’s known opportunities.

Transport Strategy Delivery Action Plan

6.3.11 Given the need to plan, design test and implement the various interventions identified and

maximise the various funding opportunities, there is a clear need to develop a transport

strategy delivery action plan to describe how those measures may be prioritised and

provided. The matters requiring consideration are set out below in Table 6.3.

Table 6-3 Transport Strategy Delivery Action Plan

Action Plan Element Comments

Masterplan Review

and Development

- Transport planners to work alongside council’s Masterplanners to

best develop, plan-in and actively support highway, bus and TDM

interventions within the new community

- refine bus and TDM interventions packages

- consider need for further sub-strategies (e.g. public realm,

freight movement)

Highway Corridor

design development

- take initial interventions forward for detailed design, costing

and operational assessment

- refine highways corridor strategy

Bus strategy

interventions design

development

- take initial interventions forward for detailed design, costing and

operational assessment incl. liaison with TfL, London Buses



Interventions

funding strategy

- review opportunities for funding bus, public transport and TDM -

related improvements, incl. Use of funds already secured:

- review scale and timing of likely further Masterplan developer

contributions to interventions

- develop detailed strategy for TDM delivery to ‘lock-in’ Smarter

Travel, incl. S106 contributions, monitoring and enforcement

- prepare TDM funding plan with specification of planning

obligation to ratchet financial support

- review and scope available public funding opportunities at local,

sub-regional, national and Euro-level

TDM interventions

develop Sustainable Transport Audit to best locate supporting

complementary infrastructure measures within and around the

Masterplan area

Monitor interventions

performance

monitor and review road traffic volumes, bus service usage, mode

shift, smarter travel performance on an ongoing basis throughout

the Masterplan period.

MVA Consultancy provides advice on transport and other policy areas, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers. A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a 500-strong team worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world. For more information visit www.mvaconsultancy.com

Email: [email protected]

Offices also in

Bangkok, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore

Birmingham

Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street

Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681

Dubai

Office 402, Building 49, Dubai Healthcare City

PO Box 123166, Dubai, UAE

T: +971 (0)4 433 0530 F: +971 (0)4 423 3613

Dublin

First Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place

Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland

T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001

Edinburgh

Stewart House, Thistle Street, North West Lane

Edinburgh EH2 1BY United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)131 220 6966 F: +44 (0)131 220 6087

Glasgow

Seventh Floor, 78 St Vincent Street

Glasgow G2 5UB United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)141 225 4400 F: +44 (0)141 225 4401

London

Second Floor, 17 Hanover Square

London W1S 1HU United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 7529 6556

Lyon

11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France

T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28

Manchester

25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza

Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095

Marseille

76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France

T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14

Paris

12-14, rue Jules César, 75012 Paris, France

T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01

Woking

Dukes Court, Duke Street, Woking

Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom

T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207

Transport Strategy Key Component Study...Table 5.16 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of...

Documents

Transcript of Transport Strategy Key Component Study...Table 5.16 Wembley Hill Road/ South Way Option 2 Summary of...