Development Impact Report Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study

Development Impact Report

Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study

Development Impact Report

SRMMS (AM/PM/Saturday)

Rotherhithe Saturday Multi-Modal Model

29 January 2010

Prepared by

Stephen Bennett

Export House

Cawsey Way

Woking

Surrey

GU21 6QX

UK

T +44 (0)1483 731000

F +44 (0)1483 731003

© Mouchel 2010 1

Document Control Sheet

Project Title Rotherhithe Saturday Multi-Modal Model

Report Title Development Impact Report

Revision DRAFT – Not for Circulation

Status DRAFT

Control Date 30 January 2010

Record of Issue

Issue Status Author Date Check Date Authorised Date

2 DRAFT SBennett Jan10

Distribution

Organisation Contact Copies

LBS – Internal Review Only Electronic

Mouchel Project File Hard Copy

© Mouchel 2010 2

Contents

Document Control Sheet ............................................................................................2

Contents ......................................................................................................................3

Table of figures ...........................................................................................................5

Tables...........................................................................................................................6

List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................7

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................9

1.1 Background and objectives of the study ...............................................................9

1.2 Previous Multi-Modal Study..................................................................................9

1.3 Saturday Multi-Modal Study ...............................................................................10

2 Planning Developments...................................................................................11

3 Modelling Approach.........................................................................................12

3.1 Local Multi Modal Model.....................................................................................12

3.2 Strategic Highway Model....................................................................................15

3.3 Model Periods ....................................................................................................16

3.4 Data Collection...................................................................................................17

3.5 Base Year Matrix Development..........................................................................18

4 Modelling Scenarios ........................................................................................19

4.1 Principles ...........................................................................................................19

4.2 Development Options.........................................................................................20

4.3 Infrastructure Options.........................................................................................21

4.3.1 Controlled Parking Zones 21

© Mouchel 2010 3

4.3.2 Changes to Lower Road gyratory system 21

5 Forecast Methodology .....................................................................................22

5.1 Planning Projections ..........................................................................................22

5.2 Public and Private Forecast Growth Assumptions ..............................................23

5.3 Consistency with National Projections................................................................23

5.3.1 Private and Public Trip Growth 24

5.4 Incorporation of Specific Developments .............................................................28

5.4.1 Development Trip Generation 28

5.4.2 Development Trip Distribution 29

5.5 Strategic Model Assignments .............................................................................30

6 Development Impacts ......................................................................................31

6.1 Flows on Local Roads........................................................................................31

6.2 Passenger Forecast Predictions.........................................................................41

6.3 Volume to Capacity Ratios .................................................................................45

7 Conclusion .......................................................................................................51

Appendix A: Proposed Development Composition ................................................53

Appendix B: Locations of 2009 Surveys .................................................................55

Appendix C: Planning Data ......................................................................................61

Appendix D: Trip Purpose Analysis.........................................................................64

Appendix E: Model Parameters................................................................................66

Appendix F: Modelled Flows in the Study Area ......................................................67

Appendix G: Glossary and Abbreviations...............................................................70

© Mouchel 2010 4

Table of figures

Figure 2.1-1: Rotherhithe Redevelopment Areas.....................................................11

Figure 3.1-1: Modal Zone Split ................................................................................14

Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 1 Traffic Flows ...........................32









© Mouchel 2010 5

Tables

Table 4.1-1: Modelling framework for scenario tests................................................20

Table 5.3-1: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - AM...........................25

Table 5.3-2: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - PM...........................26

Table 5.3-3: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - Saturday..................27

Table 5.4-1: Trip Generation for Sites A and B........................................................29

Table 5.4-2: Trip generation for Sites C - G and the Leisure Site.............................29

Table 6.2-1: Bus Assignment AM ............................................................................42

Table 6.2-2: Bus Assignment PM ............................................................................42

Table 6.2-3: Bus Assignment Saturday ...................................................................42

Table 6.2-4: Tube Assignment AM ..........................................................................43

Table 6.2-5: Tube Assignment PM ..........................................................................44

Table 6.2-6: Tube Assignment Saturday .................................................................45

Table 6.3-1: Degree of Saturation - Key Links AM Period........................................47

Table 6.3-2: Degree of Saturation - Key Links PM Period........................................48

Table 6.3-3: Degree of Saturation - Key Links Saturday Period...............................49

© Mouchel 2010 6

List of Abbreviations

AAP Area Action Plan, usually referring to Canada Water Area Action Plan,

published by Southwark Council, November 2008

ATC Automatic Traffic Count. A volumetric traffic survey

BODS Bus Origin and Destination Surveys. Interview surveys undertaken by

Transport for London of London bus passengers

DfT Department for Transport

DLR Docklands Light Railway, a rail line in the London underground

network

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, published by the Highways

Agency

ELL East London Line, a London Underground Line serving the

Rotherhithe peninsula

GLA Greater London Authority, the strategic citywide government for

London

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

LATS London Area Transport Surveys. A series of interview and volumetric

transport surveys across Greater London, undertaken by the

Department for Transport

LGV Light Goods Vehicle

LMM Local Multi Modal Model

LMVR Local Model Validation Report

LTS Local Travel Surveys

LUL London Underground Line

MCC Manual Classified Count. A volumetric traffic count of specific vehicle

categories

MMM Multi Modal Model

NAOMI A highway model developed in SATURN software covering the

Greater London Area

© Mouchel 2010 7

NTEM National Trip End Model. Covers Great Britain and is produced by the

Department for Transport

OPCS Office of Population and Censuses Surveys

PCU Passenger Car Units

RODS Rail Origin and Destination Surveys Interview surveys undertaken by

Transport for London of London rail passengers

RSI Roadside Interview Survey, used to collect origin, destination and trip

purpose data from private vehicle drivers

StratM Strategic Model, developed in SATURN and covering the wider area

around Rotherhithe

TA Transport Assessment, a comprehensive process and relating

document that sets out transport issues relating to a proposed

development

TEMPRO Trip End Model Program, a program that accesses and assesses the

National Trip End Model

TfL Transport for London

WebTAG Transport Analysis Guidane, published by the Department for

Transport, available online

© Mouchel 2010 8

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and objectives of the study

The objective of the study was to identify both short and long-term transport impacts

on the Canada Water regeneration area within Rotherhithe during multiple peak

travel periods. Developments in the local and adjacent areas as well as major

transport proposals in the related vicinity were assessed.

Local developments include regeneration of parcels of land around Canada Water as

well as proposed increases in capacity at the leisure and retail facilities within the

area. Developments in the surrounding areas of Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich

and Tower Hamlets are also recognised as having potential impact and have been

taken into account during the study.

Key transport features in Rotherhithe include Rotherhithe Tunnel, a heavily used

river crossing. The tunnel’s southern portal is on the south-western end of the

peninsular and the approaches are frequently congested, directly affecting traffic on

Lower Road and Jamaica Road.

The alternate south-eastern entrance to the study area is the second key transport

feature. The Lower Road gyratory with Bestwood Street, Bush Road and Rotherhithe

New Road experiences high flows of traffic travelling into and through the peninsula.

A previous multi modal study was developed in 2006 which simulated transport

patterns during the AM and PM weekday travel peaks. In addition to re-validating the

2006 models for base year 2009, a Saturday multi modal model was also developed.

This report reviews the forecast results of both the revalidated weekday and newly

developed Saturday models.

1.2 Previous Multi-Modal Study

A weekday peak multi-modal model was completed by Mouchel in 2006/07. This

provided a comprehensive view of transport patterns within the peninsula and

examined the impacts of a wide range of internal and external factors. A Local Model

Validation Report for this study was issued to the London Borough of Southwark in

January 2007, and the Forecast Report was made available in November 2007.

The previous study produced a SATURN/CUBE-based multi-modal model including

the following modes:

• Road Traffic

• Bus

• London Underground Lines (LUL)

The multi-modal model reflects fine detail within the study area, with a courser network and zone system beyond the peninsula.

© Mouchel 2010 9

A strategic highway model was also produced in SATURN. This model was used to

assess the impacts of wider area developments and strategic traffic movements

through the peninsular.

The existing weekday models (Strategic & Local Multi Modal) have been revalidated

to 2009 traffic volumes using Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data collected in the

summer of 2009. The 2009 Local Multi Modal Validation Report, issued in

conjunction with this report, describes this process in further detail.

1.3 Saturday Multi-Modal Study

Further development proposals in and around Rotherhithe required the development

of a Saturday Multi-Modal Model and Saturday Strategic Highway Model. These

models are based on the previous 2006 models and provide a view of local travel

patterns during the peak shopping and leisure period. The modelling approach also

reflects that of the earlier weekday model.

The Saturday study covers both short term and longer term time horizons, as

follows. The Short Term Transport Assessment has a 5 year horizon (2014) and

focuses on the following issues:

• The predicted impact of new and planned developments on sites A – G in Canada Water as well as additional development areas within the peninsular, as highlighted in the Canada Water AAP.

• Current and predicted congestion problems related to the Rotherhithe Tunnel access.

• Current and predicted congestion problems at Redriff / Lower Road gyratory

• Bus Routing and Priority Proposals

The Long Term Transport Assessment has a horizon of 15 years (2024) and is aimed at setting out the transport development programme required to deal progressively with:

• The predicted impact of the progressive development of (Canada Water) sites A – G and additional development areas within the peninsular, as highlighted in the Canada Water AAP.

• Local impact of other developments in Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Tower Hamlets

• Impact of external rail issues, e.g. Jubilee Line congestion, CrossRail, East London Line Phase II extension and further development on the Isle of Dogs.

• Strategic highway issues, e.g. the impact of Thames crossings, such as Tower Bridge and Blackwall Tunnel

• The Olympic Games at Stratford and the regeneration of the Lee Valley.

© Mouchel 2010 10

2 Planning Developments

The major developments that will have an impact on Lower Road and other parts of

the study area are the shown in Figure 1.3-1. Chapter 3 of this report details the

method of developing trip generation matrices from the individual site planning data.

Developments outside the peninsula have also been taken into account. Important

external developments include Convoy Wharf and the Giffin Street redevelopment in

Lewisham. Both developments are expected impact traffic within the Rotherhithe

area. Other external developments which are expected to impact the Rotherhithe

area are planned in Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and the Isle of Dogs.

Figure 1.3-1: Rotherhithe Redevelopment Areas

© Mouchel 2010 11

3 Modelling Approach

The study examined two distinct travel scenarios for the weekday AM and PM peaks

and Saturday peak travel times:

a) The local multi-modal travel pattern on the peninsula, including mode choice due to East London Line improvements and as well as journeys via the London underground and bus networks. Additionally, a forecast of modal share due to personal trips generated and attracted to planned developments was also developed.

b) The strategic / long distance effect of developments outside the study area, including changes in cross-Thames vehicle traffic, the impacts of which are largely road based.

A series of separate models have been developed by Mouchel, each tailored to

simulate a single development scenario. The scenarios have been developed with

differing levels of detail, as dictated by their individual methodologies and the

response-time requirements for their output. This enabled the data collection to be

focussed on local needs, the modelled area to be minimised and results to be

obtained as soon as possible.

As a result, two interrelated models were proposed:

• A local multi-modal model which concentrates on the peninsula and environs

• A strategic highway model based initially on readily available data and developed later as may be required.

The two prime models are considered in further detail below. In each case, the AM and PM models created in 2006 were revalidated to 2009 and a new Saturday model developed. The Local Model Validation Report, issued in conjunction with this report, gives further details of the matrix development, model calibration and validation processes.

3.1 Local Multi Modal Model

The local multi-modal model was developed to replicate the current pattern of

transport relating to movements into, out of and within the peninsula. It addresses

local issues relating to access and provides an early assessment of the impact of

proposed developments in Canada Water, particularly changes to retail and leisure

sites. It will subsequently inform the Long Term Transport Assessment for the

progressive impact of the development of sites detailed in Appendix A and the

Canada Water AAP.

© Mouchel 2010 12

The model provides an indication of the modal share of trips generated and attracted

to the developments.

It includes the following modes:

• Road Traffic including heavy vehicles

• Bus

• DLR / LUL

River transport was considered to be outside the study scope, as insufficient

volumes of locally generated passengers use this mode during Saturday retail and

leisure travel peak.

The model covers the Saturday peak travel time and the weekday AM and PM

peaks. Surveys were undertaken in the peninsula as indicated in Section 3.4.

The highway models are in terms of total traffic. No separate model was created for

HGVs. The models are based in SATURN, which covers road traffic and has a good

representation of highway congestion, including junction interaction blocking back,

and CUBE (previously known as TRIPS) which covers public transport.

The zone system and network are quite fine within the peninsula in order to reflect

the different routing and distribution patterns that sub-areas might have. Externally,

the zones and network become rapidly coarser with distance from peninsula.

Importantly, the zone system is based on districts used in the National Trip End

Model, allowing for consistency in applying nationally projected growth factors, as

discussed in Chapter 5

There are 53 zones on the peninsula and 247 within the whole model. The internal

model area is bounded by Southwark Park / Kings Stairs Gardens in the west, the

main railway line and the Borough Boundary in the south, with the River Thames in

the north and east. A diagram of the zone system is provided in Figure 3-1 on the

following page.

© Mouchel 2010 13

Figure 3.1-1: Modal Zone Split

For rail based travel, the models take account of overcrowding and capacity

improvements on the Jubilee Line as well as the new routeing options that will arise

from the re-opening of the East London Line (Overground). The extension of the

East London Line (ELL) will ultimately provide services extending north to Highbury

& Islington, south to West Croydon and west to Clapham Junction.

Once complete, the ELL could potentially facilitate ‘orbital’ journeys around London.

The project will be delivered in two phases. Phase 1 will extend the existing line

north to Dalston Junction and south to Crystal Palace and West Croydon. Phase 2

will extend the line west to Clapham Junction and connect with North London Line

stations at Canonbury and Highbury & Islington. Phase 1 will be completed in June

2010 and Phase 2 will be completed by 2012.

The local multi modal model (LMM) was created using data from the various surveys

undertaken in July 2009, together with information from other available sources, e.g.

LTS, PLANET, RAILPLAN, OPCS Census, LUL passenger data etc. Details of the

data collection are provided in Section 3.4.

TfL Tube has supplied data for the origin/destination patterns of passengers entering

and leaving the three local underground stations on the peninsula: Rotherhithe

Station, Canada Water Station and Surrey Quays Station. The surveys were

undertaken in 2004 for Canada Water and in 2000 for Surrey Quays and

Rotherhithe. Information included ultimate origin and destination locations as well as

the underground stations at either end of the trip. The age of these data is not crucial

© Mouchel 2010 14

to the model, as trip generation was expanded using the National Trip End database,

as detailed in the following chapter.

Separate models were constructed for each of the main modes (Highway/Tube/Bus).

The highway model zone system matches that of the public transport model, with

zones that get progressively courser as the distance from the study area increases.

The highway model matrices were developed from the Roadside Interview surveys

(RSI) undertaken in 2009 on Brunel Road, Surrey Quays Road, Neptune Street and

Redriff Road, as well as volumetric surveys on surrounding roads within the study

area.

The validation of the Multi-Modal Model has been completed and the standards set

by the Highways Agency in the Design Manual for Roads a Bridges (DMRB), were

achieved for the Local highway model in all travel periods studied. The Strategic

Model has only been calibrated to DMRB Standards.

3.2 Strategic Highway Model

The Strategic Highway Model was used to demonstrate the impacts of wider area

developments and strategic traffic management measures, which may affect routing

through the area. For example, the model includes other Thames crossings, such as

Tower Bridge and Blackwall Tunnel and reflects changes to the balance of usage

resulting from network alternations. The Strategic Model is also used to inform the

Long Term Transport Assessment.

The Strategic Highway model was developed using SATURN, a software package

which best meets the strategic development requirements of the study. More

specifically, the strategic model was originally based on pre-existing data from the

Highways Agency’s NAOMI model, also based in SATURN. This development

process is described in detail in the 2006 Local Model Validation Report.

To develop the Saturday strategic model, the 2006 weekday matrices were factored

to simulate observed 2009 Saturday counts. At this stage, the model and network

were both checked for errors. The weekday models were also revised with survey

data collected in May and June, 2009. Any revisions were in the vicinity of

Rotherhithe only.

Figure 3.2-1 shows the network coverage of the strategic models in the vicinity of the

peninsula which indicates the level of flows currently contained within the model.

The strategic models were calibrated against 2009 AM, PM and Saturday traffic

counts in the wider locality of the peninsula and 2009 journey time data from the

local surveys.

© Mouchel 2010 15

Figure 3.2-1: Strategic Model (SATURN) Network

3.3 Model Periods

The modelling periods have been identified by analysing traffic count data from the

2006 Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study, covering the main routes throughout the study

area. These time periods were chosen to best replicate different trip patterns during

the weekday and Saturday.

The AM peak is reasonably distinct across the peninsula, except for Surrey Quays Road, which experiences a steady increase in traffic throughout the morning. There are also distinctly different peak characteristics on Lower Road compared to roads accessing the peninsula, such as Jamaica Road and Evelyn Street. An average hour period of 0700 – 1000 provides the best compromise representing the reasonably high flows sustained across the network while also catering for the different characteristics between Lower Road and roads accessing the peninsula.

For the PM, the peaks are far less distinct due to the inter-urban nature of the main roads passing through the study area. For consistency purposes, a three hour model period was also adopted for the PM period covering the hours 1600 – 1900. These hours provide a sustained period of high flow covering the peak hours on mainline links, as recommended by DMRB Traffic Model Development recommendations (Volume 12, Section 2, Part 1, paragraph 4.3.3).

Saturday travel patterns also lack a distinct peak hour. However, the period of 1000 -

1400 was chosen as the model period, as it sustains considerable traffic flows

© Mouchel 2010 16

throughout these four hours on all main roads and important minor roads on the

peninsular.

The modelled times are considered to be a typical (neutral) situation for all modelled

periods. As such, no data was collected or used if it was concurrent to any major

sporting or cultural events within the vicinity of the study area.

3.4 Data Collection

Surveys were conducted over three Saturdays in June 2009 at times compatible with

the model periods. The following survey types were undertaken:

a) Roadside Interviews: RSI surveys of traffic leaving the peninsula were undertaken on Brunel Road, Neptune St, Surrey Quays Road and Redriff Road. These four RSI surveys recorded the origin, destination and trip purpose of traffic leaving the study area through the sites, and were used to populate the highway element of the local multi modal model. They also provided data on the destinations of highway trips generated by new developments. The sites were surveyed in the single direction (outbound) in order to prevent the surveys causing congestion backing onto Lower Road. The data was later transposed to show the reverse (inbound) traffic patterns. Traffic counts were used to expand the data to represent total flows.

RSI surveys were undertaken on 20th and 27th of June, avoiding local schools’ half term, construction works on the Rotherhithe New Road bridge and the Cope Street bridge, as well as closure of Surrey Canal Road. RSI survey data sets from other studies, specifically the 2001 LATS surveys at the southern entrance to Rotherhithe Tunnel were factored to 2009 volumetric surveys. These surveys provided information on longer-distance highway trips to develop the SATURN model.

b) Bus Occupancy Surveys: Bus origin/destination data has been collected from TfL’s BODS and KEYPOINTS survey databases. These surveys do not cover Saturday travel patterns, and it was necessary to undertake Bus Occupancy surveys to validate this data for Saturday travel patterns. Bus Occupancy Surveys were undertaken at three key locations including Brunel Road, Surrey Quays Road and Redriff Road. These surveys were carried out by taking time stamped digital photographs of passing buses, capturing the route number and occupancy. The percent occupancy on each bus was manually enumerated at a later date from the photographs.

Each bus occupancy survey was taken in the southbound direction to avoid double counting and observe outbound flows.

© Mouchel 2010 17

c) Manual Classified Counts (MCCs): Classified junction turning counts were recorded at various local highway intersections during two Saturdays in June 2009, including:

i) Jamaica Road / Brunel Road / Lower Road / Rotherhithe Tunnel Approach

ii) Lower Road / Redriff Road iii) Rotherhithe New Road/ Redriff Road / Hawkstone Road iv) Evelyn Road – Rotherhithe New Road Gyratory system.

MCCs classified vehicles by the following types: Pedal cycles, Motorcycles, Cars and taxis, Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs), Medium-Goods Vehicles (MGVs), Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and Passenger service vehicles. The surveys were coordinated with the RSIs to act as controls and provide information on vehicle types.

d) Queue Length Surveys: Vehicle queues were recorded at the main junction arms of the Evelyn Road/Rotherhithe New Road gyratory system on 6th June 2009 – including Hawkstone Road, Lower Road, Plough Way and Bestwood Street – as the Jamaica Road roundabout. These surveys were used to calibrate the SATURN model.

e) Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs): These surveys were conducted at 37 locations throughout and on the perimeters of the study area. ATC surveys were used to fill in volumetric data gaps not covered by the MCC and RSI programmes, and also to calibrate the weekday model, as the surveys were undertaken over a two-week period, including weekdays and weekends.

f) Journey time data. The Saturday travel times were obtained for key routes in the study area. Journey time data was used to validate the local and strategic highway models, using moving observer surveys carried out by Mouchel.

Appendix B shows the locations of these surveys.

3.5 Base Year Matrix Development

Both the strategic and local highway models’ base year matrices were developed by

combining extractions from the NAOMI model with expanded roadside interview

data. The NAOMI model was used to simulate traffic flows within the wider area

surrounding the peninsular.

The process of extracting relevant trips from the NAOMI model was undertaken

during the 2006 multi modal study, and this method is detailed in the 2006 LMVR. In

summary, trips from the NAOMI model that passed through the study area were

isolated and refined. Traffic volumes were refined using 2001 LATS surveys at local

river crossings as well as 2006 traffic count surveys.

The AM and PM base year matrices were expanded to simulate 2009 traffic volumes

in the process described in the 2009 LMVR. The Saturday base year matrix was

developed by merging the 2009 Saturday RSI station matrices with a combined AM

and PM wider-area trip matrix, factored to simulate Saturday strategic trips.

© Mouchel 2010 18

4 Modelling Scenarios

4.1 Principles

The models described above were used to create various development Scenarios,

with network alternations and traffic growth forecasting as defined in Table 4.1-1.

This section describes the scenarios that apply to each of the individual models.

a) Strategic Model (StratM)

The strategic model was developed in a two-tiered approach. The first tier included

Scenario 1, as defined above, but none of the Scenarios 2-8. Data from Scenario 1

of the StratM was passed to the Multi Modal Model in order to create the subsequent

scenarios in the MM model.

b) Multi Modal Model (MMM)

The multi modal model includes all of the Scenarios 1-8 described above. Because

development of Sites C, E, F, G and the Leisure site will not be complete by 2014,

Scenarios 4-8 were only tested for 2024 planning projects, as described in Chapter

5.

© Mouchel 2010 19

Local Highway PT

Forecast Scenario Description 2014 2024 2014 2024

1

Traffic Growth included for all Modelled Area, with developments at site A & B included at a detailed level. Base Year Highway Network X X X X

2

Traffic Growth included for all Modelled Area, with developments at site A & B included at a detailed level Highway Network Modified to include CPZ* in Rotherhithe Area X X

3

Traffic Growth included for all Modelled Area, with developments at site A & B included at a detailed level. Highway Network Modified to Include CPZ & 2 Way Road System** to replace the Existing Lower Road Gyratory X X

4 As Scenario 1 with all sites included in Appendix A X X X

5 As Scenario 2 with all sites included in Appendix A X

6 As Scenario 3 with all sites included in Appendix A X

Table 4.1-1: Modelling framework for scenario tests

*Controlled Parking Zones on Lower Rd and Evelyn St;

**2-way traffic on currently 1-way sections of Lower Rd, Evelyn St, Bush Rd and Rotherhithe New Rd;

4.2 Development Options

To assess the impact of private development within the study area, two development

options were assessed in conjunction with multiple infrastructure options, described

in the following section.

The “Do-Minimum” development option is described in Table 4.1-1 as Scenarios 1.

Possible highway changes were also tested with this development option in

Scenarios 2 and 3.

The “Do-Something” development option includes all proposed developments listed

in Appendix A. This option is tested with possible highway networks in Scenarios 4-

6.

© Mouchel 2010 20

4.3 Infrastructure Options

Scenario 1 and Scenario 4 test the two development options described in the

previous section with no changes to the current highway network.

Scenarios 2-3 and 5-6 include possible changes to the existing transport

infrastructure in the study area. Separate scenario tests were conducted for each

private development option to assess the impact of infrastructure changes in

conjunction with different levels of development.

4.3.1 Controlled Parking Zones

There are currently parking zones on Lower Road between Redriff Road and

Bestwood Street as well as Rotherhithe Old Road and Bush Road. One option

Mouchel was commissioned by Southwark Council to test was impact of removing

controlled parking on these sections of road allowing instead for an additional traffic

lane.

The AM, PM and Saturday local highway networks were changed to incorporate this

option. Scenario 2 simulates this option with the “do-minimum” level of private

development, i.e. only approved developments on Sites A and B. Scenario 5

simulates removal of controlled parking on these links with the “do-something” level

of private development, e.g. also including development of all Canada Water

regeneration sites.

4.3.2 Changes to Lower Road gyratory system

The additional lane allowed by removing controlled parking on Lower Road,

Rotherhithe New Road and Bush Road, as discussed in Section 4.3.1, makes

possible a second infrastructure option. The second infrastructure option tested in

the Rotherhithe multi modal study was to change the single-direction Lower Road

gyratory system to a series of 2-way links.

The Lower Road gyratory system consists of Lower Road, Bestwood Street, Bush

Road and Rotherhithe New Road, all of which are one-way, except for Rotherhithe

New Road (west of Rotherhithe Old Road) and Lower Road (west of Hawkstone

Road). With the additional space from removal of the controlled parking, it is possible

to allow 2-way traffic on Lower Road, Bush Road and all of Rotherhithe New Road.

These changes were incorporated in the AM, PM and Saturday model networks for

Scenarios 3 and 6.

Scenario 3 examines the impact of “Do-Minimum” private development, including

development of Sites A and B only, on the local transport network with a 2-way

gyratory system. Scenario 6 tests the impact of a “Do-Something” level of private

development, which includes all proposed developments listed in Appendix A.

© Mouchel 2010 21

5 Forecast Methodology

5.1 Planning Projections

Demand levels for travel are determined by planning projections for population,

households and employment growth, together with predictions for car ownership and

personal trip rates. Projected planning data was based on anticipated development

data provided by Southwark Council, which reflect targets set by the Mayor's London

Plan, a spatial development strategy for London up to 2020 and beyond.

The method for producing trip growth factors was based on the Department for

Transport's multi-modal National Trip End Model (NTEM). Importantly, NTEM

provides forecasts which are consistent with National projections. This provides

Borough/District Trip end projections for both private and public travel.

The Department for Transport's program TEMPRO enables trip end growth factors to

be extracted from the NTEM database. The most updated version of TEMPRO was

used, version 5.4, which is valid through April 2010. Adjustments may be made to

the base year planning data for households and employment to reflect local growth

projections. The planning data that has been used for this study is included as

Appendix C.

Table C-1 shows the projected increase in population for the London Boroughs.

Table C-2 shows the projected increase in households for the London Boroughs.

Table C-3 shows the projected increase in employment for the London Boroughs.

Key points to note in relation to the London planning projections at 2024 are as

follows:

• The highest predicted absolute growth in population and households across Greater London is in Newham. Tower Hamlets has the highest predicted growth in employment.

• Southwark has the third highest increase in population, households and employment in inner London, after Newham and Tower Hamlets.

• Of the outer boroughs, Barnet and Greenwich have higher predicted increases in population and households than Southwark. They also have higher increases in employment, alongside Ealing, when compared with Southwark.

A high level of growth is therefore predicted within Southwark and the surrounding

areas.

© Mouchel 2010 22

5.2 Public and Private Forecast Growth Assumptions

Forecast private and public transport matrices were produced for 2014 and 2024.

Trip growth factors were determined in two phases. The first phase was to determine

trip growth factors for planned developments within the study area, as described in

the following Section 5.4

The second phase was to determine trip growth factors for all other zones not

included in the planned development sites. This phase was based on the NTEM

database described previously. Growth factors were extracted using TEMPRO for

all combined trip purposes and each time period (AM, PM and Saturday) for 2009 to

2014 and 2009 to 2024. Adjustments were made to growth factors for zones which

were already adjusted in phase one.

For the Rotherhithe multi modal model, no adjustment was made for Fuel Price and

income factors because these were not required, as the model framework is Multi-

Modal. In addition to this Traffic suppression was considered at a strategic level, and

the elasticity parameters used in the Rotherhithe multi modal model are listed in

Appendix E.

The growth factors were applied using a Furness process whereby the cells of the

matrices were factored iteratively to the column and row totals. This satisfies the

target trip row and column totals but also retains the integrity of the base year

distribution of movements.

5.3 Consistency with National Projections

Detailed information was obtained for projections of households and employment

consistent with the London Plan. The TEMPRO data set (version 5.4) was used to

obtain this information and is valid through Aprill 2010. Version 5.4 encompasses the

latest GLA projections including September 2006 Draft for Further Alterations to the

London Plan1.

TEMPRO allows for alternative planning assumptions to be specified, however the

household projections in TEMPRO are consistent with the London Plan. Where

planning permission had been approved in the study area, growth factors for the

zone containing the development were controlled to the TEMPRO modelled total. All

other zones were controlled to the overall TEMPRO level. This is standard advice

which ensures consistency in scheme appraisal.

The reference case growth factors represent a level of general growth consistent

with national and local aspirations. However, they are not related to any specific

development. In order to take account of specific developments at the local level, it

1 Draft for Further Alterations to the London Plan, Spatial Development Strategy for Greater

London, December 2008.

© Mouchel 2010 23

was necessary to incorporate any associated development trips explicitly into the

forecasts and then to control the total level of growth within the zone to the level

determined by TEMPRO. This was done by reducing (in the event relatively small

adjustments) the remaining growth in the zone to ensure that there was no over

counting of development.

5.3.1 Private and Public Trip Growth

Forecast year vehicle matrices were developed for both the Strategic highway model

and the local highway model based on the principles set out above. For the local

highway model the 'through traffic' movements were taken from the strategic model

following the strategic model assignment. This enabled any changes in longer

distance traffic to be reflected in the local highway model.

Table 5.3-1, Table 5.3-2 and Table 5.3-3 show the predicted levels of growth in the

AM, PM and Saturday model periods, respectively, for the London Boroughs of

Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Tower Hamlets; growth in ‘all other areas’ is

shown for comparison. These growth levels represent theoretical growth which is

not constrained by congestion or subject to any interventionist transport policy.

As a general observation, the level of private vehicle growth is seen to be higher

than that for bus and tube travel. It is also noted that Tower Hamlets is forecast to

have the highest private vehicle growth, with Southwark being the second highest.

© Mouchel 2010 24

Area/Direction Travel Mode

Trips (in units of 10,000) % Change

Base (2009) 2014 2024 2009-2014

2009-2024

South

wark

Inbound

Car Driver 5.00 5.38 6.07 1.08 1.21

Bus & Tube 5.20 5.35 5.65 1.03 1.09

All Trips 10.19 10.73 11.72 1.05 1.15

Outbound

Car Driver 4.80 5.33 6.20 1.11 1.29

Bus & Tube 4.08 4.26 4.51 1.04 1.11

All Trips 8.88 9.59 10.72 1.08 1.21

Lew

ish

am

Inbound

Car Driver 4.42 4.65 5.02 1.05 1.13

Bus & Tube 2.53 2.56 2.61 1.01 1.03

All Trips 6.95 7.21 7.63 1.04 1.10

Outbound

Car Driver 5.45 5.86 6.51 1.07 1.19

Bus & Tube 3.89 3.99 4.15 1.03 1.07

All Trips 9.34 9.84 10.66 1.05 1.14

Gre

enw

ich Inbound

Car Driver 4.99 5.36 6.03 1.08 1.21

Bus & Tube 2.63 2.72 2.91 1.04 1.11

All Trips 7.62 8.09 8.94 1.06 1.17

Outbound

Car Driver 5.19 5.76 6.78 1.11 1.31

Bus & Tube 3.45 3.68 4.10 1.07 1.19

All Trips 8.64 9.45 10.88 1.09 1.26

Tow

er

Ha

mle

ts Inbound

Car Driver 5.29 5.87 6.95 1.11 1.31

Bus & Tube 5.73 6.07 6.69 1.06 1.17

All Trips 11.02 11.93 13.64 1.08 1.24

Outbound

Car Driver 4.00 4.69 6.00 1.17 1.50

Bus & Tube 3.69 4.04 4.68 1.10 1.27

All Trips 7.69 8.73 10.69 1.14 1.39

All

Oth

er

Inbound

Car Driver 1467 1547 1669 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 424 428 438 1.01 1.03

All Trips 1891 1975 2106 1.04 1.11

Outbound

Car Driver 1466 1545 1665 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 418 422 430 1.01 1.03

All Trips 1884 1966 2096 1.04 1.11

Table 5.3-1: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - AM

© Mouchel 2010 25



Base (2009) 2014 2024 2009-2014

2009-2024

South

wark

Inbound

Car Driver 5.99 6.59 7.60 1.10 1.27

Bus & Tube 3.54 3.67 3.89 1.04 1.10

All Trips 9.53 10.26 11.49 1.08 1.21

Outbound

Car Driver 5.90 6.39 7.25 1.08 1.23

Bus & Tube 4.23 4.34 4.57 1.03 1.08

All Trips 10.13 10.73 11.82 1.06 1.17

Lew

ish

am

Inbound

Car Driver 6.51 6.96 7.69 1.07 1.18

Bus & Tube 3.23 3.30 3.43 1.02 1.06

All Trips 9.74 10.26 11.12 1.05 1.14

Outbound

Car Driver 5.86 6.18 6.70 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 1.94 1.96 2.00 1.01 1.03

All Trips 7.80 8.13 8.70 1.04 1.12

Gre

enw

ich

Inbound

Car Driver 6.39 7.05 8.24 1.10 1.29

Bus & Tube 2.87 3.05 3.39 1.06 1.18

All Trips 9.26 10.10 11.63 1.09 1.26

Outbound

Car Driver 6.32 6.84 7.77 1.08 1.23

Bus & Tube 1.95 2.02 2.17 1.03 1.11

All Trips 8.27 8.85 9.94 1.07 1.20

Tow

er

Ha

mle

ts Inbound

Car Driver 5.11 5.91 7.41 1.16 1.45

Bus & Tube 3.22 3.50 4.05 1.09 1.26

All Trips 8.32 9.41 11.46 1.13 1.38

Outbound

Car Driver 5.80 6.50 7.80 1.12 1.34

Bus & Tube 4.78 5.05 5.58 1.06 1.17

All Trips 10.58 11.55 13.39 1.09 1.27

All

Oth

er

Inbound

Car Driver 1720 1813 1957 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 321 323 328 1.00 1.02

All Trips 2042 2135 2284 1.05 1.12

Outbound

Car Driver 1721 1814 1959 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 325 327 332 1.01 1.02

All Trips 2046 2141 2291 1.05 1.12

Table 5.3-2: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - PM

© Mouchel 2010 26



Base (2009) 2014 2024 2009-2014

2009-2024

South

wark

Inbound

Car Driver 23.09 25.27 29.20 1.09 1.26

Bus & Tube 9.93 10.17 10.78 1.02 1.09

All Trips 33.02 35.44 39.98 1.07 1.21

Outbound

Car Driver 23.49 25.71 29.71 1.09 1.26

Bus & Tube 9.76 9.98 10.56 1.02 1.08

All Trips 33.25 35.69 40.26 1.07 1.21

Lew

ish

am

Inbound

Car Driver 24.69 26.26 28.94 1.06 1.17

Bus & Tube 7.92 7.98 8.25 1.01 1.04

All Trips 32.61 34.23 37.19 1.05 1.14

Outbound

Car Driver 24.85 26.42 29.10 1.06 1.17

Bus & Tube 7.83 7.89 8.16 1.01 1.04

All Trips 32.68 34.31 37.26 1.05 1.14

Gre

enw

ich Inbound

Car Driver 25.62 28.02 32.55 1.09 1.27

Bus & Tube 7.61 7.95 8.78 1.04 1.15

All Trips 33.24 35.97 41.33 1.08 1.24

Outbound

Car Driver 25.75 28.15 32.69 1.09 1.27

Bus & Tube 7.52 7.85 8.67 1.04 1.15

All Trips 33.26 36.00 41.35 1.08 1.24

Tow

er

Ha

mle

ts

Inbound

Car Driver 19.69 22.53 27.90 1.14 1.42

Bus & Tube 9.08 9.71 11.06 1.07 1.22

All Trips 28.77 32.24 38.96 1.12 1.35

Outbound

Car Driver 20.09 22.98 28.45 1.14 1.42

Bus & Tube 9.09 9.71 11.06 1.07 1.22

All Trips 29.18 32.69 39.51 1.12 1.35

All

Oth

er Inbound

Car Driver 6327 6663 7202 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 1095 1092 1106 1.00 1.01

All Trips 7422 7755 8309 1.04 1.12

Outbound

Car Driver 6328 6665 7205 1.05 1.14

Bus & Tube 1094 1091 1105 1.00 1.01

All Trips 7423 7756 8310 1.04 1.12

Table 5.3-3: Forecast Reference Growth for 2014 and 2024 - Saturday

© Mouchel 2010 27

5.4 Incorporation of Specific Developments

Trips which would be expected to be generated by local developments were

incorporated into the “Do-minimum” and “Do-something” forecast matrices. Trip

growth factors for these developments were based on the site developers’ transport

assessments as well as observed trip rates produced by similar developments.

Observed trip rates were measured by trips per a square metre of equivalent land-

use classification. These rates were extracted from TRAVL/TRICS.

Demand by various modes to and from each development were, whenever possible,

based on information presented in Transport Assessment (TA) documents.

Importantly, the amount of development traffic that was incorporated into the model

was consistent with TA’s, obtained from Southwark Council planning website.

The total trip demand within each zone or borough was then controlled to the overall

zone or borough growth, consistent with the TEMPRO forecasts. The process of

reducing the remaining trips within the borough was done by considering the total

origins and destinations for zones within the borough and factoring these to a level

which effectively compensates for the additional development traffic.

5.4.1 Development Trip Generation

Table 5.4-1 shows the AM, PM and Saturday trip generation for development sites A

and B. Table 5.4-2 shows the AM, PM and Saturday trip generation for all other

assessed developments.

These trip totals apply to each respective development and are incorporated into the

fixed forecast model years (2014 and 2024) as shown in Table 4.1-1 on page 20.

For development sites included in Scenarios 4-6, Information was available on

permissible development classes and expected floor areas of different land use

classes. These have been translated into weekday trip generations based on the

same proportions for sites A and B.

© Mouchel 2010 28

Site

BS

ite

A

Car Trips Tube & Bus Trips

AM PM SAT AM PM SAT

Outbound 85 39 62 212 103 99

Inbound 17 58 38 46 151 62

Outbound 34 27 31 86 108 61

Inbound 17 31 24 72 104 55

Table 5.4-1: Trip Generation for Sites A and B

Car Trips Tube & Bus Trips

AM PM SAT AM PM SAT

Outbound 90 161 165 164 324 244

Site

C

Inbound 91 158 159 176 316 246

Outbound

Site

E

21 62 42 17 56 37

Inbound 51 40 45 49 34 42

Outbound

Site

337 746 542 758 1598 1178

F &

G

Inbound 393 720 557 847 1552 1200

Outbound

Site

81 180 131 117 294 206

Leis

ure

Inbound 95 174 135 73 253 163

Table 5.4-2: Trip generation for Sites C - G and the Leisure Site

5.4.2 Development Trip Distribution

The method for developing forecast matrices using the above growth was as follows,

for both private and public mode trips:

For the weekday model periods, the distribution of trips for Canada Water

developments was based on the distribution of trips for existing zones in the study

area for which trip movements were reasonably significant. Three zones were

identified that contained substantial numbers of trips for both the AM and PM

periods, all of which were within one kilometre of the development sites. These

zones comprise residential properties, a health centre and several schools. The

same distribution of trips to/from these zones was applied to the development sites.

© Mouchel 2010 29

For the Saturday model period, separate methods were applied to the sites in Table

5.4-1 compared with those in Table 5.4-2.

The 2009 matrices of trips to and from the developments sites listed in Table 5.4-2

had already been developed by the expansion of RSI data. The trip matrices for

these zones were factored to the forecast number of trips, with matching origin and

destination patterns.

The weekday trip matrices for Sites A and B, listed in Table 5.4-1, were originally

developed in 2006 using the methods set out in the 2006 LMVR. These matrices

were factored to simulate Saturday trip volumes identified by NTEM. Unlike the sites

in Table 5.4-2, which already attract and generate trips observed by the 2009 RSIs,

Sites A and B currently have no development, therefore requiring the use of the

matrices developed in 2006.

5.5 Strategic Model Assignments

Given the assessed level of growth in private vehicle travel described in Section

5.3.1, it is likely that this level of growth would not be sustainable. In reality there

would be a transfer from private to public travel, or some other mechanism whereby

trips on the highway network would be satisfied by an alternative ‘demand

management’ approach, such as road space reallocation or improvements to

sustainable travel infrastructure.

To take account of a more sustainable approach to travel, the reference case

highway demand was assigned to the strategic model network using an elasticity

assignment. In this way travel demand over and above that which would be

realistically accommodated on the network is deemed to be satisfied by an

alternative mechanism, such as modal transfer, trip retiming, or re-distribution. This

is considered to be acceptable for the strategic model for which the purpose is to

provide through traffic to the local model study area within the vicinity of Rotherhithe.

Forecasts were undertaken using an all purpose matrix in passenger car units

An elasticity value representing high modal transfer was adopted, as given by the

DfT WebTAG guidance.

Appendix E provides details of the model assignment parameters.

© Mouchel 2010 30

6 Development Impacts

The following sections present the results of the model test scenarios. Each model

provides results at different levels of detail as described below:

The strategic model may be used to provide information on trip lengths and area

wide routeing patterns. It provides 'through traffic' movements passing through the

Rotherhithe area which are incorporated into the Local Highway Model. It is not

intended to present results explicitly from the strategic model

The local multi modal model comprising public and private transport provides

predictions of both traffic and passenger flows. These are presented separately.

Loadings on the highway network may also be presented in terms of the ratio of flow

to capacity in order to give an indication of network congestion.

6.1 Flows on Local Roads

Error! Reference source not found. to Table F-2 in Appendix F show the base and

forecast flows for the AM, PM and Saturday model periods respectively, for each

scenario for roads within the immediate vicinity of the Rotherhithe peninsula. A

general commentary on these flows is given as follows:

• The development of Sites A and B do not have a significant impact on the

total inbound and outbound trips in the AM and PM periods between 2014

and 2024. The impact of these developments is more significant in the

Saturday modelling period, especially for outbound trips.

• Changes to the transport infrastructure (Scenarios 2-3, 4-5) decreases

congestion on the Rotherhithe Tunnel in the AM, PM and Saturday travel

periods.

• The development of Sites C-G and the Leisure Site (Scenarios 4-6)

significantly increase congestion on Redriff Road, Brunel Road and Surrey

Quays Road in all three time periods.

• The reduction in the controlled parking zones (Scenarios 2 and 4) has a

beneficial effect on congestion at Redriff Road and Rotherhithe New Road.

However, this congestion is relieved by allowing traffic to pass through the

proposed 2-way gyratory (Scenarios 3 and 6).

Diagrammatic representations of the flows for each scenario, comparing the base

flows, with each Scenario flows are given in Error! Reference source not found. to

Figure 6.1-9 on the following pages.

© Mouchel 2010 31

+

= Base Year (2009) flows = 2014 Scenario 1

= Difference

863 861 861 862 861 860

Actual Flows shown in PCUS -1 0 -1

1191 1122 892 1271 1174 1011

79 51 119

173 253 307 195 282 328 21 29 20

422 340 364 482 369 437

907 1163 1169 61 29 73

191 264 386 215 280 446 24 17 60

1169 1042 1095 1169 1023 1119 561 905 856

0 -19 24

220 279 371 272 283 387

975 1023 850 52 4 16

1059 1068 1081 83 45 231

695 680 458 723 716 683 28 36 225

321 483 513

337 518 539 16 35 25

397 508 551 483 585 645 86 77 94

439 440 233 437 441 436 810 1014 1128

-2 1 203 833 1077 1166 23 63 38

23 21 24 424 510 492 23 21 25 433 659 655 1 0 1

476 644 750 473 654 750

540 810 591 -3 10 0 555 854 919

15 44 328 432 421 531 463 472 581 31 52 50

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

995 1194 1169 88 31 0

635 938 997 74 34 141

505 747 660 563 770 758

58 24 97

9 148 164

Figure 6.1-1: Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 1 Traffic Flows

© Mouchel 2010 32

© Mouchel 2010 33

Figure F- 1: Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 2 Traffic Flows

= Base Year (2009) flows= 2014 Scenario 2= Difference

863 861 861

277 599 146Actual Flows shown in PCUS -586 -263 -715

1191 1122 892790 745 217

-401 -377 -675

173 253 307

33 92 4-140 -161 -304

422 340 364457 475 296

907 1163 1169 36 135 -68407 401 128

-500 -761 -1041191 264 386317 365 335

126 101 -511169 1042 1095790 614 223 561 905 856

-379 -428 -872 270 438 193-290 -467 -663

220 279 371

506 269 175975 1023 850 286 -10 -197742 468 303

-234 -554 -547695 680 458

448 521 513-247 -160 56

505 747 660364 507 386 321 483 513

-141 -240 -274 607 609 615

286 126 102

397 508 551450 639 94253 131 391

439 440 233429 444 407 810 1014 1128-11 4 174 906 1109 1203

96 96 75

23 21 24424 510 492 24 20 23504 675 493 1 0 -180 164 1

476 644 750461 559 750

540 810 591 -15 -85 0492 1144 924-48 335 332 432 421 531

501 408 60968 -13 77

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+


© Mouchel 2010 34



863 861 861


1191 1122 892526 652 323

-665 -470 -569

173 253 307

2 18 4-171 -235 -303

422 340 364554 515 414

907 1163 1169 132 175 50237 271 176

-670 -891 -993191 264 386329 336 335

139 72 -501169 1042 1095790 790 645 561 905 856

-379 -252 -450 239 240 155-322 -665 -701

220 279 371

572 512 544975 1023 850 351 233 172855 690 801

-121 -332 -49695 680 458

429 347 417-266 -334 -41

505 747 660246 262 212 321 483 513

-258 -485 -448 769 864 867

448 381 354

397 508 551379 425 486-18 -83 -66

439 440 233310 375 364 810 1014 1128

-129 -65 131 724 629 918-86 -384 -210

23 21 24424 510 492 137 21 286742 764 1164 114 0 262318 254 672

476 644 750450 572 682

540 810 591 -25 -72 -68282 840 913

-258 30 322 432 421 531

554 442 470121 21 -61

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 35



863 861 861

860 861 860Actual Flows shown in PCUS -2 0 -1

1191 1122 8921368 1261 1187177 138 295

173 253 307

210 293 31337 40 5

422 340 364592 470 513

907 1163 1169 171 131 1501132 1169 1169225 6 0

191 264 386245 303 427

54 40 411169 1042 10951169 1111 1162 561 905 856

0 69 67 734 930 979173 25 122

220 279 371

274 294 406975 1023 850 54 15 34

1109 1130 1169134 108 319

695 680 458

759 759 75564 79 298

505 747 660653 757 792 321 483 513148 10 132 361 535 593

39 52 80

397 508 551530 650 692133 141 141

439 440 233437 440 442 810 1014 1128

-2 0 209 930 1165 1230120 152 103

23 21 24424 510 492 25 22 26446 708 749 2 1 122 198 258

476 644 750474 684 750

540 810 591 -1 40 0576 964 104636 154 455 432 421 531

576 578 594143 158 62

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 36



863 861 861


1191 1122 892522 602 231

-669 -520 -661

173 253 307

0 5 6-173 -248 -302

422 340 364525 488 325

907 1163 1169 104 148 -39210 218 134

-697 -944 -1036191 264 386321 331 347

130 68 -391169 1042 1095563 400 251 561 905 856

-606 -641 -844 295 296 217-265 -609 -639

220 279 371

469 274 258975 1023 850 249 -5 -114687 444 365

-288 -579 -486695 680 458

496 513 507-199 -167 49

505 747 660462 446 456 321 483 513-42 -301 -205 704 667 652

383 184 138

397 508 551623 777 995226 269 443

439 440 233437 441 397 810 1014 1128

-2 1 164 1019 1151 1203209 137 75

23 21 24424 510 492 28 20 23642 695 586 5 -1 -1217 185 94

476 644 750456 538 750

540 810 591 -20 -106 0627 1202 102487 392 432 432 421 531

574 509 639141 89 108

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 37


= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 3

= Difference

863 861 861249 344 215

Actual Flows shown in PCUS -614 -518 -646

1191 1122 892512 635 287

-680 -487 -605

173 253 3070 7 3

-173 -246 -305

422 340 364572 539 431

907 1163 1169 150 200 67223 263 160

-683 -899 -1009191 264 386340 346 340149 83 -46

1169 1042 1095790 790 558 561 905 856

-379 -252 -537 270 264 160-290 -641 -696

220 279 371575 559 573

975 1023 850 355 280 202

946 729 862-30 -294 11

695 680 458495 344 425

-200 -337 -33505 747 660276 313 235 321 483 513

-228 -434 -425 808 896 922486 413 408

397 508 551487 494 55790 -14 5

439 440 233330 383 365 810 1014 1128

-109 -57 132 727 642 960-83 -372 -168

23 21 24424 510 492 137 22 333916 832 1198 114 2 308

492 322 707

476 644 750445 622 712

540 810 591 -31 -22 -38423 928 918

-117 118 327 432 421 531554 454 445121 33 -86

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 38



= Difference

863 861 861859 858 858


1191 1122 8921413 1125 1101222 2 209

173 253 307202 234 26629 -19 -42

422 340 364944 1035 913

907 1163 1169 522 695 5491168 1169 1169261 6 0

191 264 386485 964 949294 701 563

1169 1042 10951169 1169 1169 561 905 856

0 127 74 838 1495 1419277 591 563

220 279 371395 369 448

975 1023 850 175 90 76

1097 1108 1175122 85 325

695 680 458642 736 754-53 56 297

505 747 660536 683 745 321 483 513

31 -64 85 839 888 816518 405 303

397 508 5511082 1196 992686 688 441

439 440 233438 441 441 810 1014 1128

-2 1 208 1066 1215 1251256 202 123

23 21 24424 510 492 23 17 22542 692 751 0 -4 -2

118 181 259

476 644 750539 665 750

540 810 591 63 21 0763 1186 1155

223 376 564 432 421 531658 738 634225 317 103

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 39



= Difference

863 861 861202 328 229


1191 1122 892479 561 374

-713 -562 -518

173 253 3070 20 2

-173 -232 -305

422 340 364571 524 449

907 1163 1169 149 184 85197 241 174

-710 -922 -995191 264 386389 426 407198 163 21

1169 1042 1095512 599 460 561 905 856

-657 -443 -635 331 313 219-230 -592 -637

220 279 371624 677 729

975 1023 850 404 398 358

759 633 625-217 -389 -225

695 680 458544 495 472

-151 -186 14505 747 660525 488 559 321 483 513

21 -259 -102 1002 1000 969681 517 456

397 508 5511146 1103 1110749 595 558

439 440 233440 381 319 810 1014 1128

0 -59 86 1192 1319 1330382 306 203

23 21 24424 510 492 25 15 20731 691 734 2 -6 -4

307 181 243

476 644 750432 474 694

540 810 591 -44 -170 -56847 1340 1204

306 530 612 432 421 531652 535 662220 115 131

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 40



= Difference

863 861 861250 226 295


1191 1122 892451 377 376

-740 -745 -516

173 253 3070 1 15

-173 -251 -293

422 340 364638 530 540

907 1163 1169 216 190 176219 175 211

-688 -988 -959191 264 386407 417 418216 154 32

1169 1042 1095790 465 790 561 905 856

-379 -576 -305 292 267 220-269 -638 -637

220 279 371592 690 636

975 1023 850 372 411 265

1143 743 1003167 -280 152

695 680 458742 514 57147 -166 114

505 747 660279 348 212 321 483 513

-226 -399 -449 1146 1166 1167825 683 653

397 508 5511153 1003 966756 495 415

439 440 233350 370 366 810 1014 1128-89 -70 133 733 1006 920

-77 -7 -208

23 21 24424 510 492 34 19 231806 650 1159 11 -1 207

382 140 667

605 519 507766 570 853 476 644 750161 51 345 627 750 750

540 810 591 151 106 0539 1139 1078

-1 329 486 432 421 531456 439 41524 19 -116

NORTH

One-way street

SA

T F

low

s

AM

Flo

ws

PM

Flo

ws

Key

+

© Mouchel 2010 41

6.2 Passenger Forecast Predictions

Table 6.2-1, Table 6.2-2 and Table 6.2-3 show the assigned flows for each forecast

assignment for bus travel for the AM, PM and Saturday model periods respectively.

Table 6.2-4,Table 6.2-5 and Table 6.2-6 show the assigned passenger flows on each

tube line within the immediate vicinity of the Tube network to Rotherhithe.

A general commentary on these flows is given as follows:

• Without completion of any developments listed in Appendix A, bus travel

shows a decline during the AM, PM and Saturday periods between 2009 and

2014, and then increases slightly by 2024. This is shown in columns labelled

“ND.”

• In Scenario 4, including all developments listed in Appendix A, there is

expected to be a significant increase the number of bus passengers in

leaving and entering the peninsula in all three time periods by 2024, most

significantly in the Saturday period.

• The number of bus passenger trips is higher in the AM and PM periods

compared with the Saturday period in all development scenarios. This is

because weekday travel purposes generate a higher number of trips leaving

and exiting the Peninsula than Saturday travel purposes.

• The Jubilee line between Canada Water and Bermondsey is forecast to have

a significant growth in passengers in the eastbound direction between 2009,

2014 and 2024. This is true for the westbound direction during the PM period.

In the Saturday period Jubilee Line passengers are expected to decrease in

all directions to and from Canada Water. This is a direct response to the

reassignment of trips to the East London Line.

• The East London Line is currently closed. It will be re-opened by 2014 and

the number of passengers using this line are expected to increase across all

three time periods and in both north and southbound direction between 2014

and 2024.

• Travel by underground has forecast to increase significantly between 2009

and 2024. The reopening of the East London Line and the upgrades to the

Jubilee line will provide adequate capacity.

© Mouchel 2010 42

Road name

AM 2009

AM ND 2014

AM ND

2024

AM S1 2014

AM S1 2024

AM S4 2014

AM S4 2024

Brunel Rd Inbound 117 93 98 95 100 95 132

Brunel Rd Outbound 760 536 568 541 573 541 548

Surrey Quay Rd Inbound 1107 859 908 855 904 855 1122

Surrey Quay Rd Outbound 920 664 700 668 705 668 733

Redriff Rd Inbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Redriff Rd Outbound 454 401 425 412 436 412 589

Bus Lane to Retail Park Inbound 1028 818 862 810 854 810 1148

Totals Inbound 2253 1770 1869 1760 1858 1760 2402

Outbound 2134 1602 1694 1621 1713 1621 1870

Table 6.2-1: Bus Assignment AM (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local Development)

Road name

PM 2009

PM ND 2014

PM ND

2024

PM S1 2014

PM S1 2024

PM S4 2014

PM S4 2024








Totals Inbound 2566 2046 2161 2087 2203 2087 2814

Outbound 2755 2305 2432 2285 2410 2285 3145

Table 6.2-2: Bus Assignment PM (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local Development)

Road name

Sat 2009

Sat DM 2014

Sat DM

2024

Sat S1 2014

Sat S1 2024

Sat S4 2014

Sat S4 2024








Totals Inbound 1723 1655 1748 1709 1805 1709 2611

Outbound 1962 1851 1956 1899 2007 1899 2689

Table 6.2-3: Bus Assignment Saturday (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local

Development)

© Mouchel 2010 43

Service Direction AM 2009

AM ND 2014

AM ND

2024

AM S1 2014

AM S1 2024

AM S4 2014

AM S4

2024 Jubilee Line: Bermondsey to Canada Water Eastbound

415 368 388 443 468 443 608

Canada Water to Bermondsey Westbound

1559 1327 1401 1444 1526 1444 1575

Canada Water to Canary Wharf Eastbound

404 326 344 348 367 348 381

Canary Wharf to Canada Water Westbound

204 171 180 168 177 168 215

Total 2581 2191 2313 2403 2538 2403 2779

East London Line: Rotherhithe to Wapping Northbound

0 960 1012 1013 1069 1013 1097

Wapping to Rotherhithe Southbound

0 215 229 229 243 229 292

Canada Water to Rotherhithe Northbound

0 864 911 928 979 928 1033

Rotherhithe to Canada Water Southbound

0 252 267 261 277 261 365

Surrey Quays to Canada Water Northbound

0 641 677 634 670 634 828

Canada Water to Surrey Quays Southbound

0 226 240 228 242 228 738

New Cross to Surrey Quays Northbound

0 153 163 161 171 161 187

Surrey Quays to New Cross Southbound

0 72 77 74 79 74 83

Total 0 3384 3576 3528 3729 3528 4623

Table 6.2-4: Tube Assignment AM (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local Development)

Note: The East London Line was closed due to extension engineering works during 2009

© Mouchel 2010 44

Service Direction PM 2009

PM DM 2014

PM DM

2024

AM DS1 2014

AM DS1 2024

AM DS4 2014

AM DS4 2024

Jubilee Line: Bermondsey to Canada Water Eastbound

1103 972 1026 1048 1106 1048 1193


604 533 562 618 653 618 751


300 254 268 253 267 253 285


448 364 384 371 391 371 424

Total 2455 2123 2241 2291 2418 2291 2653

East London Line:

Rotherhithe to Wapping Northbound 0 316 334 367 386 367 497

Wapping to Rotherhithe Southbound 0 678 713 702 740 702 831 Canada Water to Rotherhithe Northbound

0 424 448 481 508 481 649


0 428 451 448 471 448 561


0 310 328 302 319 302 793


0 540 569 526 554 526 1086


0 152 161 152 160 152 205


0 131 139 125 132 125 170

Total 0 2980 3141 3102 3270 3102 4792

Table 6.2-5: Tube Assignment PM (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local Development)


© Mouchel 2010 45

Service Direction Sat 2009

Sat DM 2014

Sat DM 2024

Sat DS1 2014

Sat DS1 2024

Sat DS4 2014

Sat DS4 2024

Jubilee Line: Bermondsey to Canada Water Eastbound

221 207 217 215 226 215 240


227 202 212 231 242 231 257


140 121 127 129 135 129 148


144 129 137 134 142 134 140

Total 732 660 693 709 745 709 784

East London Line:

Rotherhithe to Wapping Northbound 0 214 224 231 241 231 255

Wapping to Rotherhithe Southbound 0 153 158 157 163 157 183 Canada Water to Rotherhithe Northbound

0 185 194 205 216 205 240


0 125 130 130 135 130 162


0 71 75 64 68 64 89


0 68 71 67 70 67 101


0 29 31 28 30 28 34


0 18 19 17 18 17 22

Total 0 862 902 899 941 899 1086

Table 6.2-6: Tube Assignment Saturday (“S#” - Scenario #, see Table 4.1-1; “ND” – No local

Development)


6.3 Volume to Capacity Ratios

A useful measure of network performance is the volume to capacity ratio referred to

as the degree of saturation. This may be used for design purposes for example a

TfL requirement may be that links which do not provide separate bus lanes should

not exceed a saturation of 95%. The degree of saturation is also related to the

delay, and beyond a certain threshold level the delay increases exponentially as

saturation increases. As a guide, the threshold is generally in the order of 85-90%

depending on specific circumstances.

© Mouchel 2010 46

Table 6.3-1, Table 6.3-2 and Table 6.3-3 show the volume to capacity ratios for the

AM, PM and Saturday periods respectively for key links on the main roads within the

Rotherhithe area. Links which exceed a saturation of 85% are highlighted. The

results can be summarised as follows:

• Of major significance is the Rotherhithe Tunnel which is currently operating

at/near capacity. The analysis shows that in 2014 the demand for the tunnel

is clearly in excess of the capacity in southbound direction during all three

time periods, and that this remains the case for all forecast scenarios. Thus,

the Rotherhithe Tunnel is severely restricting the volume of traffic accessing

the peninsular.

• All approaches the Rotherhithe Tunnel roundabout are severely congested,

most significantly Jamaica Road and Lower Road in all three time periods.

Traffic is both metered upstream of the roundabout and is also limited by

traffic queuing back from the width restriction at the tunnel approach.

• The creation of additional lanes due to removal of parking on Lower Road,

Rotherhithe Old Road and Bush Road lessen congestion across all three time

periods and across the network, except for the approaches to the Rotherhithe

Tunnel roundabout. This is most likely due to a “bottle neck” effect, whereby

access to the peninsular from the east is improved while westward access

remains limited.

• The Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout operates over capacity in all scenarios

including the base year, this is because the access to the tunnel has a width

restriction which causes traffic to slow down significantly and therefore

reduce the capacity of the link approaching the tunnel

© Mouchel 2010 47

2009

Base Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

A100 Rotherhithe TunnelNB 99 106 66 44 114 44 43 118 40 38

A100 Rotherhithe TunnelSB 109 109 140 148 109 164 147 109 171 147

Brunel RoadNB 22 25 24 23 27 26 23 26 26 32

Brunel RoadSB 34 42 55 134 58 132 141 89 154 172

Redriff Road NB 22 23 26 39 24 34 42 57 54 61

Redriff Road SB 34 41 30 26 45 42 33 92 77 78

Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and

Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 31 35 2 2 41 2 2 51 2 3


Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 81 88 107 114 92 117 114 91 118 115

Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL

station) EB 7 7 4 4 8 5 5 6 5 7


station) WB 27 30 20 25 35 25 28 29 28 28

Surrey Quays RoadNB 19 22 32 33 25 32 34 49 39 41

Surrey Quays RoadSB 43 53 47 53 54 43 53 77 58 55

Evelyn StreetWB 58 62 67 107 77 77 107 88 87 109

Evelyn StreetEB 40 39 38 38 40 38 37 45 36 52

Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd

and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 6 6 6 9 6 7 9 6 6 8


and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 48 49 62 110 60 77 120 68 84 129

Hawkstone RoadNB 101 100 98 112 100 100 119 100 101 126

Hawkstone RoadSB 2 2 2 11 2 2 11 2 2 3

Jamaica RoadEB 78 86 102 104 98 103 105 101 103 109

Jamaica RoadWB 101 101 68 68 101 49 68 101 44 68

Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth

Road) WB 4 4 5 7 4 6 9 5 7 8


Road) EB 27 28 25 14 29 32 21 39 43 27

Rotherhithe Old Rd NBNB 23 24 26 32 26 29 32 30 34 33

2014 2024DirectionSite Discription

Table 6.3-1: Degree of Saturation - Key Links AM Period

© Mouchel 2010 48

2009




Brunel RoadNB 32 36 35 35 37 37 34 30 31 30

Brunel RoadSB 30 34 58 100 44 104 107 95 114 164

Redriff Road NB 33 35 26 58 36 45 61 60 68 64

Redriff Road SB 43 50 51 29 55 62 33 102 88 69






station) EB 7 7 5 3 8 5 3 7 5 5


station) WB 40 41 27 26 41 24 31 37 26 35



Evelyn StreetWB 56 63 54 110 77 68 110 98 71 110

Evelyn StreetEB 54 54 47 48 57 45 52 55 40 63







Jamaica RoadEB 100 103 102 103 101 106 104 101 104 105

Jamaica RoadWB 90 88 53 68 96 35 68 101 52 40


Road) WB 5 7 7 8 7 7 8 7 7 7


Road) EB 41 43 58 43 49 105 47 108 122 104


2014 2024DirectionSite Discription

Table 6.3-2: Degree of Saturation - Key Links PM Period

© Mouchel 2010 49

2009




Brunel RoadNB 39 41 43 26 40 41 26 34 34 24

Brunel RoadSB 29 40 156 145 48 162 169 83 142 159

Redriff Road NB 35 36 42 59 40 22 49 55 65 66

Redriff Road SB 47 55 75 33 59 79 38 84 88 65






station) EB 5 7 5 4 8 5 4 8 5 6


station) WB 35 41 21 21 42 24 24 40 30 21



Evelyn StreetWB 71 78 81 109 79 85 110 85 88 111

Evelyn StreetEB 63 63 63 57 63 63 59 63 58 62







Jamaica RoadEB 101 101 104 105 101 104 106 101 105 105

Jamaica RoadWB 100 100 100 56 100 100 48 101 40 68


Road) WB 5 7 5 12 7 6 12 8 7 12


Road) EB 30 47 47 46 53 62 46 100 108 74


2024DirectionSite Discription

2014

Table 6.3-3: Degree of Saturation - Key Links Saturday Period

© Mouchel 2010 50

© Mouchel 2010 51

7 Conclusion

This Report has detailed the forecasting processes and scenarios tested using the

multi modal modelling framework for the Rotherhithe peninsula. The results provide

a base line against which to assess the impact on the transport network of

development proposals for the Canada Water area on the Rotherhithe peninsula.

Local Boroughs and Transport for London (TfL) were consulted with regard to

specific development and infrastructure improvements. For the proposed

development sites under consideration reference was made to the Transport

Assessment documents.

Section 5 described the forecast methodology. Future highway and public transport

matrices were developed for the forecast scenarios based on the Department for

Transport public and private growth forecasts, modified to suit the local borough

projections for households and employment. Trip generations for the proposed

developments on Canada Water were based on the trip rates and modal proportions

for committed developments within the area.

Assignments were undertaken using the models described in the Local Model

Validation Report (LMVR).

The development impacts are set out in Section 6.

The conclusions are as follows, for all three time periods:

• The Lower Road gyratory system is currently congested (2009 Base Year), in

all three time periods. There is little scope for the gyratory system to provide

additional capacity for the predicted increased demand for higway travel if no

improvements are completed.

• At 2014 (All Developments) conditions on the local highway network are

assessed to worsen, taking into account all anticipated developments. The

proposed scheme to replace the gyratory system with a traditional 2-way road

network provides more control over the traffic movements and is able to

adjust the traffic pattern sufficiently. This will balance the demand for travel

movements between traffic from strategic, long-distance trips and locally-

generated traffic.

• At 2024 in Scenarios 1 and 4, where the Canada Water AAP sites have been

fully developed, without improvements to infrastructure. The transport

network is over capacity. The 2 way scheme in Scenarios 2, 3, 5 and 6 help

control traffic movements.

• There is evidence that some displacement of traffic onto alternative routes

occurs to accommodate the additional development traffic.

© Mouchel 2010 52

• The extension of the East London Line is expected to result in an increase in

public transport capacity and use both into and leaving the study area. With

the development of the Canada Water AAP sites, patronage of the Jubilee

line is also forecast to increase significantly as carrying capacity increases

when the current upgrade programme is completed.

• The model share between bus and tube changes significantly on the

reopening of the Jubilee line and Overground line once the upgrade

programmes are complete. More people are predicted to transfer to use

Tube/Overground therefore leaving some spare capacity on the Bus services

• Bus patronage is also expected to increase with further developments, most

notably during the Saturday time period and on routes accessing the Surrey

Quays Shopping Centre following the development of further retail space.

• The model results are logical and it is considered that the framework, which

comprises the three hierarchical models, provides a robust method for

assessing alternative options/strategies.

Based on analysis of the scenario tests, the following measures are recommended:

• There is need for transport assessments (TAs) to be carried out by the

developers of Canada Water AAP sites. Individual assessments of the trips

generated and attracted to each development, as addressed in TA

documents, would provide a more comprehensive application for the Local

Multi Modal Model.

• The reduction and regulation of parking is a useful means of managing traffic

growth. It is recommended that parking efficiency be maximised within the

study area and at all inclusive developments. This could be achieved by

introducing shared parking in the town centre. The implications of this could

include more efficient land-use, an improved pedestrian environment and

higher utilisation of provided parking spaces.

• Other “soft” travel demand management tools which can curb the growth of

private vehicle traffic include improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities within

Canada Water and surrounding areas. This could include improved

pedestrian crossing, wider sidewalks, and secure bike storage and

designated lanes. Such measures have the additional implication of providing

for healthier lifestyles and environments.

© Mouchel 2010 A53

Appendix A: Proposed Development Composition

Applicant : British Land / Canada Quays Ltd Tel No: 020-7394-7849

Site Plots Retail (m

2)

Class A

Office (m

2)

Class B1

Studio Workshop

(m2)

Class B1

Residential (Units)

Community (m

2)

Class D1

Parking Spaces

A A1 0 0 0 - 0 157

A2 0 0 0 - 430 126

A3 841 0 0 - 0 165 Sub Total 841 0 0 728 430 448

Table A-1: Proposed Development Composition for Site A. From approved planning application to Southwark Council as of November, 2009

Applicant : British Land / Canada Quays Ltd Tel No: 020-7394-7849

Site Plots Retail (m2) Class

A

Office (m2) Class

B1

Studio Workshop

(m2) Class B1

Residential (Units)

Community (m2)

Class D1

Parking Spaces

B B1 148 0 248 63 0

B2 1010 0 0 178 0 163

Library 0 0 0 0 2197 0 Sub Total 1158 0 248 241 2197 163

Table A-2: Proposed Development Composition for Site B. From approved planning application to Southwark Council as of November, 2009

Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Site Ref

Retail Class A

(m2)

Community /Leisure Class D1

(m2)

Office Class

B1 (m

2)

Retail Class

A (m

2)

Non-residential Class B8

(m2)

Community /Leisure Class D1

(m2)

Residential Units (No.)

Student Rooms (No.)

Hotel Rooms (No.)

C 6380 876 4,343 303 441

E 1920 2,597 3,948 180

F and G 29000 31,000 2,000

Leisure Site 1739 10906 2500 956 199 540 123

Table A-3: Proposed Development Composition for Sites C, E, F and G, and the Leisure Site. From approved planning application to Southwark Council as of November, 2009

© Mouchel 2010 A54

© Mouchel 2010 B55

Appendix B: Locations of 2009 Surveys

Figure B-1: Location of 2009 Roadside Interviews

© Mouchel 2010 B56

Figure B-2: Location of 2009 Bus Occupancy Surveys

© Mouchel 2010 B57

Figure B-3: Location of 2009 Manual Classified Count Surveys

© Mouchel 2010 B58

Figure B-4: Location of 2009 Queue Length Surveys

© Mouchel 2010 B59

Figure B-5: Location of 2009 Automatic Traffic Count Surveys

© Mouchel 2010 B60

Figure B-6: Routes assessed for 2009 Journey Time Surveys

Appendix C: Planning Data

London Boroughs 2009 Population

2014 Population

2024 Population

Increase 2009 - 2014

Increase 2009 - 2024

INNER LONDON BOROUGHS

Camden Council 212829 223534 242744 10705 29915

City of London Council 8075 8884 10752 809 2678

Hackney Council 213863 224746 247017 10883 33154

Hammersmith and Fulham Council 173520 179937 191292 6417 17772

Haringey Council 226977 233960 249444 6984 22468

Islington Council 186566 198195 220632 11629 34066

Kensington and Chelsea Council 173300 181746 197711 8446 24411

Lambeth Council 275047 286560 309430 11513 34382

Lewisham Council 255244 264864 284373 9619 29128

Newham Council 269691 299119 357143 29429 87452

Southwark Council 262780 279546 308211 16767 45431

Tower Hamlets Council 231190 260172 317001 28981 85811

Wandsworth Council 277279 288582 308078 11303 30799

Westminster Council 220739 234472 259816 13734 39078

OUTER LONDON BOROUGHS

Barking and Dagenham Council 172325 182893 204608 10568 32282

Barnet Council 334423 356430 396861 22007 62438

Bexley Council 220615 226093 235715 5478 15100

Brent Council 272591 284370 306604 11779 34013

Bromley Council 298478 305646 318881 7168 20403

Croydon Council 340987 353085 376464 12098 35477

Ealing Council 307308 316885 335831 9577 28523

Enfield Council 281378 288402 299897 7024 18519

Greenwich Council 232162 251408 289396 19246 57234

Harrow Council 212267 218292 228258 6025 15991

Havering Council 226534 233004 245096 6469 18561

Hillingdon Council 246838 253007 263185 6170 16348

Hounslow Council 215313 220711 231075 5398 15762

Kingston upon Thames Council 151881 157515 167135 5634 15255

Merton Council 194707 200742 211017 6034 16310

Redbridge Council 250708 263384 285274 12677 34566

Richmond upon Thames Council 178997 184412 193637 5415 14640

Sutton Council 182042 186968 195620 4927 13578

Waltham Forest Council 222208 228967 242976 6758 20768

Southwark Council

Boroughs surrounding Southwark

Table C-1: Changes in population for London Boroughs (gathered from TEMPRO dataset version 5.4)

© Mouchel 2010 C61

London Boroughs 2009 Households

2014 Households

2024 Households

Increase 2009 2014

Increase 2009 2024


Camden Council 104099 107835 115947 3736 11848


Hackney Council 94312 100299 114584 5987 20272





Lambeth Council 126232 132617 148007 6385 21775


Newham Council 107957 124960 161869 17004 53913







Barnet Council 142355 154254 179973 11899 37619

Bexley Council 95110 97882 104284 2772 9173

Brent Council 107370 113628 128316 6259 20946

Bromley Council 134389 138158 147550 3769 13162

Croydon Council 150228 156796 172940 6568 22712

Ealing Council 125175 130337 143552 5161 18376

Enfield Council 119165 122493 129944 3329 10780


Harrow Council 84761 87683 94148 2921 9386





Merton Council 84757 87544 93686 2788 8929



Sutton Council 81077 83624 89338 2547 8262


Southwark Council


Table C-2: Changes in number of households in London Boroughs (gathered from TEMPRO dataset version 5.4)

© Mouchel 2010 C62

London Boroughs 2009 Employment

2014 Employment

2024 Employment

Increase 2009 2014

Increase 2009 2024


Camden Council 117654 123765 133908 6110 16254


Hackney Council 108505 115064 127126 6559 18622





Lambeth Council 144344 152335 165703 7991 21359


Newham Council 141712 158641 188858 16929 47146







Barnet Council 144398 154929 172029 10531 27631

Bexley Council 100198 102852 105406 2654 5208

Brent Council 124198 129953 139913 5754 15715

Bromley Council 128245 131632 136049 3387 7804

Croydon Council 159992 166862 176371 6870 16379

Ealing Council 137471 149183 167197 11712 29726

Enfield Council 120542 124061 128467 3519 7926


Harrow Council 100790 102862 106205 2072 5415





Merton Council 94745 98593 103783 3848 9037



Sutton Council 92116 95241 98603 3124 6486


Southwark Council


Table C-3: Changes in employment in London Boroughs (gathered from TEMPRO dataset version 5.4

© Mouchel 2010 C63

Appendix D: Trip Purpose Analysis

Location Hourly Trip Totals by Purpose / Vehicle Type

To/From Work Employers' Business Other Escort LGV HGV

Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion

Redriff Road (Forward) 139 (51%) 40% 24 (9%) 7% 66 (24%) 19% 42 (16%) 12% 43 12% 31 9%

Redriff Road (Reverse) 94 (30%) 23% 12 (4%) 3% 178 (58%) 44% 25 (8%) 6% 60 15% 39 10%

Surrey Quays Road (Forward) 70 (37%) 28% 36 (19%) 14% 70 (36%) 28% 17 (9%) 7% 45 18% 12 5%

Surrey Quays Road (Reverse) 36 (16%) 12% 7 (3%) 2% 176 (77%) 58% 10 (4%) 3% 60 20% 16 5%

Brunel Road (Forward) 189 (70%) 60% 37 (14%) 12% 32 (12%) 10% 12 (4%) 4% 36 11% 10 3%

Brunel Road (Reverse) 60 (34%) 29% 28 (16%) 14% 85 (48%) 41% 3 (2%) 1% 18 9% 12 6%

Neptune Road (Forward) 18 (33%) 25% 9 (17%) 13% 19 (35%) 26% 8 (15%) 11% 10 14% 8 11%

Neptune Road (Reverse) 20 (42%) 34% 4 (8%) 7% 18 (38%) 30% 5 (11%) 9% 11 18% 2 3%

Lower Road (Forward) 263 (65%) 47% 45 (11%) 8% 58 (14%) 10% 40 (10%) 7% 117 21% 36 6%

Lower Road (Reverse) 427 (60%) 47% 130 (18%) 14% 111 (16%) 12% 41 (6%) 4% 154 17% 54 6%

Forward 680 (57%) 44% 151 (13%) 10% 245 (21%) 16% 118 (10%) 8% 252 16% 97 6%

Reverse 638 (43%) 34% 182 (12%) 10% 568 (39%) 30% 83 (6%) 4% 303 16% 123 6%

Combined 1318 (49%) 38% 333 (12%) 10% 813 (30%) 24% 201 (8%) 6% 554 16% 220 6%

Table D-1: AM model period trip purpose and vehicle type

Note: Figures in brackets represent private travel (car) trip proportion

D© Mouchel 2010 D64

Location Hourly Trip Totals by Purpose / Vehicle Type

To/From Work Employers' Business Other Escort LGV HGV

Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion

Redriff Road (Forward) 133 (30%) 27% 18 (4%) 4% 257 (57%) 52% 39 (9%) 8% 40 8% 11 2%

Redriff Road (Reverse) 165 (51%) 45% 30 (9%) 8% 77 (24%) 21% 51 (16%) 14% 30 8% 10 3%

Surrey Quays Road (Forward) 57 (17%) 15% 10 (3%) 3% 249 (76%) 67% 13 (4%) 4% 31 8% 9 2%

Surrey Quays Road (Reverse) 102 (38%) 33% 50 (19%) 16% 94 (35%) 30% 23 (8%) 7% 37 12% 5 1%

Brunel Road (Forward) 81 (35%) 33% 36 (16%) 15% 108 (47%) 44% 3 (2%) 1% 14 6% 3 1%

Brunel Road (Reverse) 208 (70%) 62% 43 (14%) 13% 34 (11%) 10% 12 (4%) 4% 34 10% 6 2%

Neptune Road (Forward) 20 (41%) 37% 4 (8%) 7% 15 (32%) 29% 9 (20%) 18% 5 9% 0 0%

Neptune Road (Reverse) 19 (39%) 36% 9 (18%) 17% 15 (30%) 28% 6 (12%) 11% 3 6% 1 1%

Lower Road (Forward) 383 (64%) 52% 97 (16%) 13% 79 (13%) 11% 44 (7%) 6% 108 15% 23 3%

Lower Road (Reverse) 475 (68%) 57% 78 (11%) 9% 87 (12%) 10% 62 (9%) 7% 120 14% 14 2%

Forward 674 (41%) 35% 165 (10%) 9% 708 (43%) 37% 109 (7%) 6% 198 10% 46 2%

Reverse 969 (59%) 51% 211 (13%) 11% 307 (19%) 16% 153 (9%) 8% 225 12% 36 2%

Combined 1643 (50%) 43% 375 (11%) 10% 1015 (31%) 27% 262 (8%) 7% 423 11% 81 2%

Table D-2: PM model period trip purpose and vehicle type


Location

Hourly Trip Totals by Purpose / Vehicle Type

To / From Work Employer's Business Other LGV HGV

Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion Trips Proportion

Redriff Road (Forward) 137 (5%) 5% 135 (4%) 6% 2621 (86%) 90% 144 5% 0 0%

Redriff Road (Reverse) 163 (5%) 5% 160 (4%) 5% 3116 (87%) 90% 159 4% 0 0%

Surrey Quays Road (Forward) 48 (2%) 2% 77 (3%) 5% 2343 (91%) 93% 112 4% 0 0%

Surrey Quays Road (Reverse) 37 (2%) 2% 64 (3%) 5% 1871 (91%) 93% 77 4% 0 0%

Brunel Road (Forward) 81 (4%) 4% 232 (10%) 16% 1786 (79%) 80% 118 5% 53 2%

Brunel Road (Reverse) 68 (3%) 4% 205 (10%) 16% 1558 (77%) 80% 137 7% 61 3%

Neptune Street (Forward) 17 (5%) 5% 19 (5%) 9% 299 (81%) 85% 34 9% 0 0%

Neptune Street (Reverse) 11 (4%) 6% 15 (5%) 12% 234 (80%) 82% 34 12% 0 0%

Forward 283 (3%) 4% 463 (6%) 8% 7049 (85%) 88% 408 5% 53 1%

Reverse 279 (4%) 4% 444 (6%) 8% 6779 (85%) 88% 407 5% 61 1%

Combined 562 (3%) 4% 907 (6%) 8% 13828 (85%) 88% 815 5% 114 1%

Table D-3: Saturday model period trip purpose and vehicle type


D© Mouchel 2010 D65

Appendix E: Model Parameters

Strategic Model:

Route choice coefficients: Time = 23.12 pence per minute Distance = 10.46 pence per kilometre

Elasticity Value = -0.6

Local Multi Modal Model:

Route choice coefficients (Highway): Time = 1.0 pence per minute Distance = 0.25 pence per kilometre

Lambda Value (Mode share between Public and Private) = 0.8

PT coefficients: Value of Time = 8.97 Average Walk Speed = 3.78 Kph Average Bus speed = 25 Kph Average Tube Speed = 50 Kph

© Mouchel 2010 E66

Appendix F: Modelled Flows in the Study Area

Site Discription Direction 2009

Base Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2

2014

Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

2024

Scenario 5 Scenario 6

A100 Rotherhithe Tunnel NB 1191 1271 790 526 1368 522 512 1413 479 451

A100 Rotherhithe Tunnel SB 863 862 277 246 860 208 249 859 202 250

Brunel Road NB 173 195 189 184 210 204 180 202 165 157

Brunel Road SB 422 482 457 554 592 525 572 944 571 638

Redriff Road NB 321 337 385 583 361 500 628 637 800 896

Redriff Road SB 397 483 450 379 530 623 487 1082 1146 1153






LUL station) EB 695 723 448 429 759 496 495 642 544 742


LUL station) WB 505 563 364 246 653 462 276 536 525 279

Surrey Quays Road NB 191 215 317 329 245 321 340 485 389 407

Surrey Quays Road SB 220 272 506 572 274 469 575 395 624 592

Evelyn Street WB 432 463 501 554 576 574 554 658 652 456

Evelyn Street EB 476 473 461 450 474 456 445 539 432 627

Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone

Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 605 602 646 853 612 688 853 566 598 766


Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 464 479 597 603 578 743 654 660 818 707

Hawkstone Road NB 439 437 429 310 437 437 330 438 440 350

Hawkstone Road SB 23 23 24 137 25 28 137 23 25 34

Jamaica Road EB 907 995 407 237 1132 210 223 1168 197 219

Jamaica Road WB 1169 1169 790 790 1169 563 790 1169 512 790


Road) WB 424 433 504 742 446 642 916 542 731 806


Road) EB 540 555 492 282 576 627 423 763 847 539

© Mouchel 2010 F67



2014


2024




Brunel Road NB 253 282 279 277 293 290 265 234 244 239

Brunel Road SB 340 369 475 515 470 488 539 1035 524 530

Redriff Road NB 483 518 422 605 535 382 638 888 776 928

Redriff Road SB 508 585 639 425 650 777 494 1196 1103 1003






LUL station) EB 680 716 521 347 759 513 344 736 495 514


LUL station) WB 747 770 507 262 757 446 313 683 488 348



Evelyn Street WB 421 472 408 442 578 509 454 738 535 439

Evelyn Street EB 644 654 559 572 684 538 622 665 474 750


Rd and Rotherhithe New Road) WB 519 572 598 649 556 569 673 497 452 570


Rd and Rotherhithe New Road) EB 654 708 764 711 771 769 703 770 828 842



Jamaica Road EB 1163 1194 401 271 1169 218 263 1169 241 175

Jamaica Road WB 1042 1023 614 790 1111 400 790 1169 599 465


Road) WB 510 659 675 764 708 695 832 692 691 650


Road) EB 810 854 1144 840 964 1202 928 1186 1340 1139

Total Into peninsula 999 1079 1066 1218 1131 1003 1249 2086 1446 1584

Total Out of peninsula 1127 1237 1383 1451 1414 1539 1592 2600 2304 2223

Table F-1: Flows on the Highway Network - PM (Average hour 1600 - 1900) N.b. All flows are in PCUs per

© Mouchel 2010 F68



2014


2024




Brunel Road NB 307 328 342 208 313 320 204 266 269 190

Brunel Road SB 364 437 296 414 513 325 431 913 449 540

Redriff Road NB 513 539 615 867 280 332 718 550 969 977

Redriff Road SB 551 645 942 486 692 995 557 992 1110 966






LUL station) EB 458 683 513 417 755 507 425 754 472 571


LUL station) WB 660 758 386 212 792 456 235 745 559 212



Evelyn Street WB 531 581 609 470 594 639 445 634 662 415

Evelyn Street EB 750 750 750 682 750 750 712 750 694 750


Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 507 551 584 853 535 608 853 528 572 853


Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 715 730 798 840 764 809 840 777 900 851



Jamaica Road EB 1169 1169 128 176 1169 134 160 1169 174 211

Jamaica Road WB 1095 1119 223 645 1162 251 558 1169 460 790


Road) WB 492 655 493 1164 749 586 1198 751 734 1159


Road) EB 591 919 924 913 1046 1024 918 1155 1204 1078

Total Into peninsula 1206 1312 1292 1411 1020 999 1262 1765 1645 1585

Total Out of peninsula 1287 1469 1413 1443 1611 1577 1561 2353 2288 2142

Table F-2: Flows on the Highway Network - Saturday (Average hour 1000 - 1400) N.b. All flows are in PCUs per hour

© Mouchel 2010 F69

Appendix G: Glossary and Abbreviations

ATC Automatic Traffic Counts capture information on the number,

direction, speed and classification of passing vehicles.

BODS Bus Origin and Destination Survey, Interview surveys

undertaken by Transport for London of London bus

passengers

CUBE Transport planning modelling software permitting analysts to

code transport networks and assign trip matrices, used in

transport forecasting

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, published by the

Highways Agency providing official standards and advice

notes regarding transport assessment, design and operation

KEYPOINTS Bus survey data for the number of passengers alighting and

boarding at London bus stops, undertaken by Transport for

London

Furness Process A method of expanding a trip distribution matrix that is doubly

constrained for each zones growth in both the inbound and

outbound directions

LTS London Transport Study traffic model, a strategic multi modal

model for Greater London produced for transport for London

LUL London Underground Line

MCC Manual Classified Counts recorded manually by trained

enumerators, recording vehicle classifications and counts

Multi-Modal Study A transport study encompassing both public and private

transport modes, with a trip distribution relationship allowing

transfer of mode choice

NAOMI New Assessment of Motorway Improvements traffic model

NRTF National Road Traffic Forecasts

O/D Origin/Destination

OPCS Office for Population and Censuses Survey, publish census

data and growth forecasts by region

© Mouchel 2010 G70

PLANET Passenger rail travel demand model, a public transport model

maintained by Transport for London

RAILPLAN Rail transport modelling software used by Transport for

London to assess public transport use, forecasts and trends

RSI Road Side Interview, used to collect origin, destination, trip

purpose and time of journey for private vehicle travel

SALT SATURN Assessment of London’s Traffic

SATURN Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road

Networks, a transport modelling software used most regularly

for simulating highway networks, transport demand and travel

patterns

StratM Strategic Highway Model, a simulation of the highway network

within the wider area surrounding Rotherhithe. Simulating

strategic highway links and long-distance transport patterns

TEMPRO Trip End Model Presentation Program, used to access and

assess data from the National Trip End model, which forecasts

growth in person trips on most transport modes as well as car

ownership and other demographic data

TRAVL Trip Rate Assessment Valid for London

TRICS A database of traffic generated related to the type, size, and

location of development

TRIPS Transport planning modelling software

© Mouchel 2010 G71

Documents

Development Impact Report Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study