key movers - lbbd

80

Figure 6-16: Change in vehicle delay (seconds) from ‘High Growth’ baseline – 2031 AM peak hour

Package 1 (Lodge Avenue flyover

replacement)

KEY

Package 2 (Lodge Avenue

extended underpass)

Package 3 (Lodge Avenue at-grade

solution)

Goresbrook

Interchange

Lodge

AvenueRenwick

Road

Movers

Lane

A406

junct ion

81

Figure 6-17: Change in vehicle delay (seconds) from ‘High Growth’ baseline – 2031 PM peak hour


replacement)

KEY


extended underpass)

Package 3 (Lodge Avenue at-grade

solution)

Goresbrook

Interchange

Lodge

AvenueRenwick

Road

Movers

Lane

A406

junct ion

82

6.3.2.3 2041 HAM results – AM peak

Figure 6-17 il lustrates the change in vehicle delay (in seconds) from the ‘High

Growth’ baseline forecast in each of the packages in the 2041 AM peak hour.

In general, in Packages 1 and 2, the pattern is similar to the 2031 modelling albeit

more pronounced. In both packages, significant upgrades at the Renwick Road

junct ion and the Goresbrook Interchange would result in delay reduct ions for

westbound traffic, both on the A13 mainline itself and for traffic accessing the A13

at the junct ions. In addit ion, the upgrade at Movers Lane in both packages results in

delay reduct ions for north-south traffic passing through the junct ion in both

directions.

However, as with 2031, in both packages, the addit ional t raffic released westbound

by the improvements at Renwick Road and the Goresbrook Interchange result in

addit ional delays further west. At Lodge Avenue, the retention of a grade-separated

solution in both packages and relat ively high right-turning traffic movements from

Ripple Road and Lodge Avenue would create residual merging/ diverging delays at

this location. Right-turning movements from Ripple Road and Lodge Avenue that

then turn left into River Road would also appear to create some traffic weaving issues

and subsequent delays on the approach to the westbound off-slip at the Movers Lane

junct ion.

In Package 3 with the A13 tunnel in place (approximately 1,300m long with 3x3 lane

capacity bypassing both the Lodge Avenue and Renwick Road junctions), the issue

associated with addit ional capacity releasing more traffic into pinch-points further

west (notably the Movers Lane underpass) would be more pronounced. The effect of

the surface-level Renwick Road junction in regulat ing westbound t raffic on the A13

would not apply with the tunnel in place. In addit ion, the 3x3 lane configuration

increases traffic flow into the Movers Lane underpass when compared with the 2x2

lane provision assumed for the flyover replacement and the extended underpass in

Packages 1 and/ 2.

The modelling indicates some signs that this effect would have a knock-on impact

on the surface-level road network, with delays forecast at the new Lodge Avenue

surface-level junct ion and the Ripple Road/ Upney Lane junct ion as some drivers

seek alternat ive routes around Movers Lane.

6.3.2.4 2041 HAM results – PM peak

Figure 6-18 il lustrates the change in vehicle delay (in seconds) from the ‘High

Growth’ baseline forecast in each of the packages in the 2041 AM peak hour.

More pronounced delay changes are evident in this t ime period when compared with

the 2031 PM peak modelling. In both Packages 1 and 2, the benefit of the Renwick

Road upgrade is evident, with delay reduct ions forecast for A13 westbound traffic

and left-turning traffic out of the junction. There are also some delay reduct ion

benefits evident at the Movers Lane junction due to the upgrades included in the

modelling.

At the Lodge Avenue junction, the extended underpass scheme in Package 2 appears

to handle forecast increases in traffic more effectively than the flyover replacement

scheme in Package 1. In the former, the model reports delay reductions on the

southbound Ripple Road and Lodge Avenue approaches to the junction. In contrast

in the latter, increased delay is forecast on the Ripple Road arm of the gyratory.

The westbound issue with the tunnel in Package 3 is not evident in the PM peak, as

expected since this is the counter-peak direction during this t ime period. Traffic also

flows smoothly through the tunnel eastbound, and there is some evidence of delay

reduct ions at the Lodge Avenue and Movers Lane junct ions due to the upgrades

assumed at those locations in Package 3.

6.3.2.5 HAM summary

The strategic modelling in 2031 suggests contrasting strengths and weaknesses

across the three highway packages tested, part icularly in the AM peak. Package 3,

involving the provision of an at-grade junct ion at Lodge Avenue with a banned right

turn for southbound traffic, would result in the most significant delay reductions for

traffic heading westbound towards central London in the AM peak. The banned right-

turn at Lodge Avenue in this option would remove residual issues associated with

traffic merging, diverging and weaving on the A13 mainline. These issues appear to

be intrinsic to the provision of grade separat ion at Lodge Avenue, as they are forecast

to occur in both Packages 1 and 2.

However, the trade-off for benefits on the A13 in Package 3 with the at-grade Lodge

Avenue solution would be the impact on traffic on local roads, part icularly to the

north around Barking town centre. Increased delays in these areas would occur due

83

to traffic divert ing from the Lodge Avenue junction to find alternat ive routes onto

the A13 westbound.

In the longer-term in 2041, the pattern of change in Packages 1 and 2 is similar to

that reported in 2031 but more pronounced, with capacity improvements to the east

releasing more traffic into pinch-points further west during the AM peak. This effect

is more pronounced stil l in Package 3 with the A13 tunnel in place, with the tested

3x3 lane configuration bypassing the Renwick Road junct ion result ing in increasing

delays through the underpass at Movers Lane. The modelling indicates that some

traffic diverts from the A13 to seek alternative routes as a consequence.

84

Figure 6-18: Change in vehicle delay (seconds) from ‘High Growth’ baseline – 2041 AM peak hour


replacement)

KEY


extended underpass)

Package 3 (A13 tunnel)

Goresbrook

Interchange

Lodge

AvenueRenwick

Road

Movers

Lane

A406

junct ion

85

Figure 6-19: Change in vehicle delay (seconds) from ‘High Growth’ baseline – 2041 PM peak hour


replacement)

KEY


extended underpass)

Package 3 (A13 tunnel)

Goresbrook

Interchange

Lodge

AvenueRenwick

Road

Movers

Lane

A406

junct ion

86

6.3.3 Railplan modelling

Railplan runs have been produced forecasting the impact on bus and rail services of

all three packages in the three-hour AM peak period (07:00-10:00) in 2031 and

2041, comparing against the ‘High Growth’ baseline.

Each of the plots in this sect ion il lustrate the forecast change in demand on each line

due to the package interventions, with red indicat ing a demand increase and green

indicat ing a demand decrease.

6.3.3.1 2031 change from ‘do minimum’

Package A (sweat ing assets)

Modelling outputs for Package A show a substant ial increase in rail travel of

approximately 1,300 from Dagenham Dock stat ion during the morning peak period,

accommodated by a 50% increase in capacity on the Essex Thameside Tilbury l ine

(overall demand on the line itself rises by almost 4,000 passengers upon reaching

Barking). Related to this, demand for London Underground services reduces by

approximately 1,000 westbound in the morning peak from Dagenham Heathway

and by a similar level westbound from Barking (where the Hammersmith and City

line starts).

Demand on the Gospel Oak line from Barking Riverside station increases by

approximately 1,300 passengers, many of whom appear to remain on the line and

travel to various destinations in north London, rather than simply change at Barking

for services to central London. The regional model shows no one stand-out

destination for this.

Figure 6-20: AM peak rail demand change with Package A in 2031

87

Figure 6-21: AM peak bus demand change with Package A in 2031

The model of the changes in bus passenger flows to and from Dagenham (along with

regional rail flows) suggest that potent ially around one-third of the new passengers

from Barking Riverside have travelled by bus from the Dagenham Dock area to use

the London Overground line. However, demand for buses into Barking from the

London Riverside area south of the A13 falls, due mainly to a substantial drop in

demand on Bastable Avenue because services on the Barking Riverside rail branch

increase to a ‘turn up and go’ frequency. A diversion of the bus route 145 via the Ford

Stamping Plant at Dagenham was also modelled, as mentioned in the TfL review of

bus services in London Riverside east, which indicated an increase of approximately

25 passengers in each direct ion on the route during the morning peak in the Ford

Stamping Plant area.

Package B (route enhancement)

Under modelling for Package B, the main difference is the presence of an indicative

bus route from Rainham to Barking via the former Ford car plant site and the east

side of Barking Riverside, which is similar to an option for an East London Transit

route in the ELT 2001 summary report. The Railplan modelling indicates a relatively

low level of demand in the morning peak period on this route in 2031. Approximately

200 passengers travel west (alighting at Barking Riverside station) and 100 travel

east (to the Beam Park area), potent ially due to the low build-out of developments

in the area at this point.

Figure 6-22: AM peak rail demand change with Package B in 2031

88

Figure 6-23: AM peak bus demand change with Package B by 2031

Package C (network development)

Package C results in a net increase of 2,100 passengers inward of Dagenham Dock

station using High Speed 1, comprising 8,500 new passengers from Dagenham Dock

and 6,400 fewer passengers from stops in Kent, in turn causing an increase in

passengers using other commuter trains from Kent into London.

Figure 6-24: AM peak rail demand change with Package C by 2031

Passenger numbers from Barking Riverside stat ion increase by 1,100 (compared to

1,300 in 1A and 1,500 in 2B), due to more passengers now choosing to travel to

Dagenham Dock to use high speed rail. There is also abstract ion of around 600

passengers from the Elizabeth Line further north.

There is a significant increase in bus passengers travell ing to Dagenham Dock from

Barking Riverside and Dagenham Heathway to use high speed rail, with abstraction

from London Underground services of around 2,000 passengers during the morning

peak. Bus travel to Barking Riverside from Dagenham reduces by around 200

passengers during the morning peak.

89

Figure 6-25: AM peak bus demand change with Package C by 2031

In summary, packages A and B provide an increase in capacity from the area by 2031,

accommodat ing extra demand from the LROA and connect ing with the new Barking

Riverside London Overground extension. However, as may be expected, only

package C provides a transformative change, with a major increase in capacity into

central London, l inks to Kent and a corresponding alteration in the local traffic

patterns as people access the new stat ion.

Forecast crowding on rail services (2031)

The following tables indicate forecast crowding on the rail network in the 2031 AM

peak hour in the ‘High Growth’ baseline and each of the package tests. Crowding on

the C2C Rainham Loop line, the Gospel Oak-Barking Overground line (including the

extension to Barking Riverside), and the District and Hammersmith & City l ines

through Barking is shown in turn.

The tables indicate that Package C would deliver the highest level of crowding relief

on the C2C Line due to the combined impact of the frequency upgrade and the

provision of a new HS1 station at Dagenham Dock, which would divert passengers

from exist ing services. However, the model forecast indicates a significant degree of

residual crowding on this l ine in all scenarios during the AM peak hour.

Table 6-1: Rainham Loop line (C2C) - 2031 AM peak hour crowding density

(standing passengers per m2) towards London

From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Grays Purfleet 2.85 1.57 1.57 1.94

Purfleet Rainham 3.86 2.34 2.34 2.66

Rainham Beam Park 5.59 3.96 3.86 4.10

Beam Park

Dagenham

Dock 6.73 4.83 4.79 4.98

Dagenham

Dock Barking 7.77 6.58 6.55 5.57

Barking West Ham 5.50 5.21 5.21 4.94

West Ham Limehouse 4.37 4.12 4.12 3.99

Limehouse Fenchurch St 1.68 1.46 1.46 1.36

Table 6-2: Gospel Oak-Barking Overground line - 2031 AM peak hour crowding

density (standing passengers per m2) westbound

From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Riverside Barking 0.15 1.21 1.27 0.94

Barking

Woodgrange

Park 2.72 3.13 3.14 2.87

Woodgrange

Park

Wanstead

Park 3.00 3.41 3.41 3.17

Wanstead

Park

Leytonstone

High Rd 3.23 3.62 3.62 3.42

90

Leytonstone

High Rd

Leyton

Midland Rd 3.83 4.22 4.22 4.06

Service frequency increases (and in Package C the HS1 stat ion) would also

progressively reduce crowding on the District and Hammersmith & City London

Underground lines to the north, as passengers divert to using the improved services.

This is evident in the bus usage patterns described above, which show Dagenham

Dock stat ion intercepting bus passengers that would otherwise head towards

Dagenham Heathway station.

Table 6-3: District / Hammersmith & City lines - 2031 AM peak hour crowding

density (standing passengers per m2) towards London

From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Upminster

Upminster

Bridge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Upminster

Bridge Hornchurch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hornchurch Elm Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Elm Park Dagenham East 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.20

Dagenham East

Dagenham

Heathway 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.66

Dagenham

Heathway Becontree 1.74 1.53 1.53 1.35

Becontree Upney 2.40 2.14 2.14 1.96

Upney Barking 2.85 2.59 2.58 2.40

Barking East Ham 3.02 2.86 2.86 2.70

East Ham Upton Park 3.15 3.02 3.02 2.89

Upton Park Plaistow 3.69 3.58 3.58 3.46

Plaistow West Ham 4.00 3.89 3.89 3.78

West Ham Bromley by Bow 3.19 3.13 3.13 3.05

Bromley by Bow Bow Road 3.43 3.37 3.37 3.30

Bow Road Mile End 4.05 3.99 3.99 3.92

Mile End Stepney Green 3.39 3.36 3.36 3.32

Stepney Green Whitechapel 3.70 3.67 3.67 3.63

6.3.3.2 2041 change from ‘do minimum’

Package A (sweat ing assets)

Package A has no further improvements proposed on the public transport network

in 2041 compared to 2031. Modelling shows a continued increase in use of the Essex

Thameside Tilbury l ine into London during the morning peak, with approximately

1,500 addit ional passengers from Dagenham Dock station during the morning peak

(overall demand on the line itself has now risen by approximately 3,800 passengers

upon reaching Barking).

Figure 6-26: AM peak rail demand change with Package A in 2041

91

Related to this, demand on the London Underground reduces by approximately

1,200 westbound in the morning peak from Dagenham Heathway and 1,900 by a

westbound from Barking, as the London Overground line abstracts passengers who

wish to travel further into north London. Demand from Barking Riverside stat ion

increases dramatically by 2041, rising to 2,300, a further 1,000 passengers higher

than in 2031. The number of passengers using the London Overground line west of

Barking to connect to north London increases further, by 2,100 passengers

compared to ‘do minimum’.

Figure 6-27: AM peak bus demand change with Package A in 2041

Demand for bus travel from Dagenham Dock to much of Barking Riverside and into

Dagenham via the EL4 route has increased further compared to 2031, showing the

usefulness of this l ink and the attractiveness of Barking Riverside, not least as a

station for connect ions to north London.

Package B (route enhancement)

Package B models the introduction of Castle Green station on the London

Overground Barking Riverside line. This causes a net increase in westbound morning

peak of around 2,900 passengers on the line and a rise of 2,200 passengers on the

London Overground line to connect to north London.

Figure 6-28: AM peak rail demand change with Package B by 2041

Related to this, demand from Dagenham Dock increases by approximately 1,100

extra passengers. This is 400 passengers fewer than in package A, largely due to the

presence of Castle Green stat ion and bus and footway connectivity to it .

92

The bus network model shows growth in travel towards Castle Green on the EL2 and

a small reduct ion in travel to Dagenham Dock, a substantial decrease in boarders

towards Barking from Bastable Avenue and the new, indicative link from the south of

Dagenham Docks via Castle Green to Barking increases in usage to around 400

passengers during the morning peak. From this newly developed area (compared to

2031), the option to travel via Castle Green rather than using crowded trains from

Dagenham Dock is possibly the reason for this.

Figure 6-29: Local bus demand change under package 2B by 2041

Package C (network development)

Package C contains the HS1 stop at Dagenham Dock and by 2041 this includes a

bridge under the railway at this location, l inking Chequers Lane South with Chequers

Lane North. There is a net increase of 3,000 passengers inward of Dagenham Dock

station on HS1, comprising an increase of 10,200 passengers from Dagenham Dock

decrease of 7,200 passengers towards London from stops in Kent.

Figure 6-30: Regional rail demand change under package 3C by 2041

Package C sees bus usage via Choats Manor Way to Dagenham Dock station increases

to 1,200 passengers and the net increase in passengers on the Barking Riverside line

as a result of Castle Green station reduces to 1,500 passengers.

Package C also models the bus transit bridge across the River Roding to the north of

the Beckton Sewage Plant and south of the A13. Indicative bus transit routes in 2041

(extending the EL4 from Barking Riverside to Gallions Reach DLR station and

introducing a new route on a new bus transit road between Castle Green and Royal

Albert Dock DLR station) have been modelled, both on a six-minute frequency. The

model output shows a demand of 1,400 westbound on the new bridge in the

morning peak based on this indicative network. Potentially related to this, Jubilee

Line flows reduce by 800 passengers from the Essex Thameside and District Line

interchange at West Ham towards Canary Wharf, compared to the 2041 reference

case.

93

Figure 6-31: AM peak bus demand change with Package C by 2041

Forecasting crowding on rail services (2041)

The following tables indicate forecast crowding on the rail network in the 2041 AM

peak hour in the ‘High Growth’ baseline and each of the package tests. Crowding on

the C2C Rainham Loop line, the Gospel Oak-Barking Overground line (including the

extension to Barking Riverside), and the District and Hammersmith & City l ines

through Barking is shown in turn.

As with the 2031 crowding forecasts, the tables indicate that Package C would deliver

the highest level of crowding relief on the C2C Line due to the combined impact of

the frequency upgrade and the provision of a new HS1 stat ion at Dagenham Dock,

which would divert passengers from exist ing services. However, the model forecast

indicates a significant degree of residual crowding on this l ine in all scenarios during

the AM peak hour in 2041.

Table 6-4: Rainham Loop line (C2C) - 2041 AM peak hour crowding density


From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Grays Purfleet 3.73 2.11 2.18 2.62

Purfleet Rainham 4.77 2.92 3.00 3.48

Rainham Beam Park 6.53 4.61 4.61 5.11

Beam Park Dagenham Dock 7.77 5.55 5.64 6.11

Dagenham Dock Barking 9.86 8.23 7.83 7.11

Barking West Ham 6.69 6.44 6.32 6.04

West Ham Limehouse 5.33 5.12 5.07 4.94

Limehouse Fenchurch St 2.38 2.18 2.13 2.02

The crowding forecast also demonstrates the benefit of the Castle Green-Beckton

BRT service included in Package C in the longer-term. This diverts passengers from

the Overground and reduces crowding on services from Riverside to Barking.

Table 6-5: Gospel Oak-Barking Overground line - 2041 AM peak hour crowding

density (standing passengers per m2) westbound

From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Barking

Riverside Castle Green - - 2.89 2.25

Castle Green Barking - - 4.84 3.66

Riverside Barking 4.22 5.20 - -

Barking

Woodgrange

Park 4.00 4.44 4.03 3.71

Woodgrange

Park Wanstead Park 4.04 4.47 3.95 3.70

Wanstead Park

Leytonstone

High Rd 4.20 4.56 4.19 3.95

Leytonstone

High Rd

Leyton Midland

Rd 4.76 5.14 4.83 4.63

94

Finally, service frequency increases (and in Package C the HS1 stat ion) would also

progressively reduce crowding on the District and Hammersmith & City London

Underground lines to the north, as passengers divert to using the improved services.

This is evident in the bus usage patterns described above, which show Dagenham

Dock stat ion intercepting bus passengers that would otherwise head towards

Dagenham Heathway station

Table 6-6: District / Hammersmith & City line - 2041 AM peak hour crowding density


From To Do Min

Package

A

Package

B

Package

C

Upminster

Upminster

Bridge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Upminster

Bridge Hornchurch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hornchurch Elm Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Elm Park Dagenham East 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.37

Dagenham East

Dagenham

Heathway 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.90

Dagenham

Heathway Becontree 2.17 1.94 1.88 1.68

Becontree Upney 2.93 2.66 2.60 2.39

Upney Barking 3.49 3.21 3.12 2.91

Barking East Ham 4.04 3.86 3.81 3.56

East Ham Upton Park 4.06 3.93 3.89 3.67

Upton Park Plaistow 4.58 4.45 4.42 4.21

Plaistow West Ham 4.83 4.71 4.67 4.49

West Ham

Bromley by

Bow 3.84 3.77 3.73 3.63

Bromley by Bow Bow Road 4.08 4.01 3.97 3.87

Bow Road Mile End 4.71 4.65 4.61 4.51

Mile End Stepney Green 3.94 3.89 3.88 3.83

Stepney Green Whitechapel 4.27 4.23 4.21 4.15

Railplan summary

In summary, more Public Transport crowding and connectivity benefits would be

delivered as intervention in the study area is elevated from Package A to Package C.

In all packages, residual crowding issues are forecast to remain on the C2C line but

part icularly so in Package A.

Package C would provide transformational connectivity and capacity to the area, if

the core feature of an HS1 stop at Dagenham Dock can be delivered, and other

components would improve the area significantly (for example, joining Chequers

Lane north and south via an underpass would directly connect the MCP site with

residential areas and new developments to the north; l ikewise, a bus transit crossing

of the River Roding could provide new east-west l inks directly from the LROA into

the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone, for buses, pedestrians and cycle users).

6.4 Freight (rail and river)

Generally, the freight traffic growth associated with planned developments is

included in the traffic model. Intensification of logistics uses at Eurohub would

undoubtedly generate addit ional HGV traffic, some of which will already be included

in the model. However, it wil l also enable significant volumes of goods traffic to be

transported by rail rather than by road, reducing the impacts on the road network. In

addit ion to traffic impacts, the new rail freight services will at tract investment and

jobs to the area and enable more freight to be transported with low or zero GHG

missions using electric t rains.

Similarly, delivering some goods to the City Markets via rail or river terminals would

reduce the traffic impact of the markets, part icularly if the rail service is direct into

the market building.

6.5 Value for Money assessment

This section summarises the economic analysis that has been undertaken for the

short l isted packages. Indicat ive costs have been estimated for each package.

Transport User Benefits Appraisal (TUBA) software has been used to estimate the

transport user benefits associated with the delivery of both highways and Public

Transport interventions – TUBA has been run using inputs from the Railplan and HAM

model runs described earlier in this chapter. The DfT Act ive Mode Appraisal Toolkit

95

(AMAT) has been used to estimate benefits arising from major walking and cycling

schemes included in each package. All benefits have been monetised allowing the

generat ion of an indicative Benefit-Cost Rat io (BCR) and an associated DfT Value for

Money (VfM) rating associated with each package.

The appraisal has been set up in accordance with DfT guidance, anticipat ing the

future requirement for a Business Case submission to central Government. However,

it should be noted that at this stage it constitutes a high-level, pre-Business Case

assessment involving some simplifying assumptions – these are described where

relevant in the remainder of this sect ion.

The assumed appraisal period is 60 years and is based on package impacts as

forecast in both the 2031 and 2041 HAM and Railplan models. The headlines for

each package are consequently a combination of short/ medium-term impacts

(2031) and long-term impacts (2041). In each case, benefits have been calculated

based on change from the ‘High Growth’ baseline forecasts.

6.5.1 Transport user benefits (highways and public transport)

Table 6-7 summarises the transport benefits estimated for Package 1 and Package

A. Core transport benefits are derived from journey t ime savings on the highway and

Public Transport networks forecast by the HAM and the Railplan model respect ively

– the posit ive numbers in the table indicate that each package overall would result

in journey t ime reduct ions when compared to the ‘High Growth’ baseline over the

appraisal period, with the Public Transport package delivering significantly higher

reduct ions than the highway package. Enhancements in Package A would also

predominately benefit commuters, while highway measures would be of greater

benefit to business users.

HAM outputs (for example changes in vehicle-kilometres and travel t ime) were also

used to estimate benefits related to greenhouse gases and indirect taxat ion. For the

former, reductions in congestion and journey t ime on the road network and mode

shift to sustainable modes result in some benefits related to lower levels of

greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, a reduct ion in car use would also result in a

loss of taxation revenue related to fuel duty – these impacts are both captured in the

highways column in this appraisal. Increased fare revenue on Public Transport due

to mode shift is captured in the assessment of the net cost of intervention (described

later in this sect ion) and is consequently not counted as a transport benefit .

Table 6-7: Package 1+A Transport User Benefits (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Highways

(Package 1)

Public Transport

(Package A)

Core transport benefits

Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users

(Commuting)

£104,888 £1,144,500


(Other)

£174,144 £280,876

Economic Efficiency: Business Users and

Providers

£183,051 £42,726

Other benefits

Greenhouse Gases £3,508 £0

Indirect Taxation -£6,272 £0

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £459,319 £1,468,102

Table 6-8 provides the same information for Package 2 and Package B. The table

indicates that Package 2 would deliver a similar level of highways benefits as Package

1, which was expected given that the only significant difference between them is the

provision of an extended underpass at Lodge Avenue rather than a flyover

replacement. In contrast, the higher level of Public Transport intervention in Package

B would result in significantly higher user benefits when compared with Package A.

Table 6-8: Package 2+B Transport User Benefits (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Highways

(Package 2)

Public Transport

(Package B)



(Commuting)

£97,604 £1,949,146


(Other)

£173,141 £478,349


Providers

£185,709 £79,184

Other benefits




96

Table 6-9 provides the same information for Package 3 and Package C. In the latter,

substantial further investment in Public Transport (for example the provision of a

new HS1 station at Dagenham Dock) results in addit ional user benefits when

compared with Package B.

However, Package 3 (with the Lodge Avenue at-grade solution in the short/ medium-

term and the A13 tunnel in the longer term) results in a lower level of highway user

benefits than Packages 1 and 2 (albeit the posit ive value means that the package stil l

improves road network performance overall when compared with the ‘do minimum’).

As described in the report ing of HAM outputs earlier in this chapter, while the at-

grade solution at Lodge Avenue improves performance along the A13, the ban on

southbound right-turning movements increases congestion on local roads,

part icularly around Barking town centre. In the longer-term through the provision of

addit ional westbound capacity, the tunnel (based on the configuration tested in this

study) would result in increased congestion through pinch-points to the west,

notably the Movers Lane underpass. These issues serve to dampen the highway

benefits generated by Package 3 when compared with Packages 1 and 2.

Table 6-9: Package 3+C Transport User Benefits (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Highways

(Package 3)

Public Transport

(Package C)



(Commuting)

£76,555 £2,431,063


(Other)

£154,396 £596,621


Providers

£138,840 £79,479

Other benefits




6.5.2 Wider Economic Impacts

In addit ion to transport user benefits, the following wider economic impacts are

typically considered in a transport Business Case:

§ Stat ic clustering – where transport investment changes the density of economic

activity (and consequently productivity) through changes in generalised t ravel

costs – reduct ions in costs effectively brings firms and employees closer

together increasing product ivity, and vice versa;

§ Labour supply impacts – where transport investment may induce individuals

who are economically inact ive to enter the labour market by reducing

generalised t ravel costs (evidence is typically required that local transport acts

as a barrier to employment);

§ Output change in imperfectly competit ive markets – where transport

investment changes economic act ivity by changing business travel costs – in

perfectly competit ive markets, output value is equal to product ion cost and

output change is consequently fully captured in transport user benefits for

business travel – where there is market failure however, output value exceeds

product ion cost and output change is not fully captured.

These wider economic impacts are described as ‘Level 2’ impacts in DfT Transport

Analysis Guidance (TAG), with transport user benefits categorised as ‘Level 1’. They

are typically estimated in appraisals that assume fixed land use, as is the case in this

study (with the ‘High Growth’ baseline and the package tests all developed using the

same housing and employment trajectories).

Wider economic impacts were assessed using a benchmarking approach in this study,

based on ranges set out in TAG Unit A2.1 (2014). This indicates that for most

transport schemes, wider economic impacts are typically between 10%-30% of

transport user benefits. A figure of 15% has been applied to business and commuter

user benefits across all packages in this study as a conservat ive estimate. The

resultant benefits estimate for each package is summarised in Table 6-10.

The estimate of wider economic impacts in Package 3 (the A13 tunnel) assumes that

no user charge is applied to the tunnel. If a user charge was introduced, this would

likely reduce wider economic impacts by increasing the generalised cost of travel for

tunnel users.

97

Table 6-10: Wider economic impacts by package (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Package Wider Economic

Impacts

Highways packages

Package 1 (Lodge Avenue flyover replacement) £44,607

Package 2 (Lodge Avenue extended underpass) £43,913

Package 3 (Lodge Avenue at-grade solution / A13

tunnel)

£33,726

Public Transport packages

Package A (‘sweat ing assets’) £178,084

Package B (‘route enhancement’) £304,250

Package C (‘network development’) £376,581

6.5.3 Active Mode impacts

In addit ion to the Public Transport user benefits described above, the sustainable

transport packages (A, B and C) would also result in some walking and cycling

benefits (although many of the smaller walking and cycling improvements included

on the init ial study long-list were categorised as complementary measures and were

consequently not included in any of the packages). An appraisal was undertaken for

major walking/ cycling (active mode) schemes that were included, with the resultant

benefits captured in the sustainable transport package headlines. These schemes

included:

§ AM01a: Cycle Superhighway 3 extension to Dagenham Dock (included in all

packages in long-term);

§ AM01b: Cycle Superhighway 3 interim extension to Lodge Avenue (included in

all packages in short/ medium-term);

§ AM06: Chequers Lane (south of Dagenham Dock) urban realm upgrade

(included in all packages in short/ medium-term);

§ AM04: Renwick Road segregated north-south green route / Cycle Superhighway

3 extension (included in Packages B and C only in short/ medium-term);

§ AM05: Renwick Road-Lodge Avenue (via Castle Green) segregated north-south

green route / Cycle Superhighway 3 extension (included in Packages B and C

only in longer-term).

The act ive mode appraisal was undertaken using the DfT Act ive Mode Appraisal

Toolkit (AMAT). The Cycle Superhighway extension schemes captured cycling

benefits, while AM04, AM05 and AM06 captured benefits for both pedestrians and

cyclists.

Baseline pedestrian and cycling demand along the routes above was estimated using

Census journey-to-work data (the appraisal during this study assumed that walking

and cycling benefits would only accrue to commuters). This data was sourced from

the Datashine website (for pedestrian trips) and the online Propensity to Cycle Tool

(PCT) – relevant Census areas along the proposed schemes were selected, and

resultant walk/ cycle trip estimates were then doubled to account for return journeys.

This current estimate of activity was then factored up to estimate a future baseline

accounting for the impact of new development, as follows:

§ The housing forecast in the vicinity of proposed schemes was sourced from the

LBBD trajectory;

§ An average of 2.7 occupants per housing unit was used to estimate the total new

populat ion associated with development;

§ The population figure was then adjusted to estimate the proport ion likely to be

in employment using a current LBBD rat io;

§ Census journey-to-work mode share data was then applied to estimate a

baseline number of walking and cycling commuter trips – TfL’s Travel in London

Report 12 was reviewed to determine if any uplift should be applied to account

for increasing levels of walking and cycling since the 2011 Census, but data for

the period 2011 to 2019 suggested no significant change in walk/ cycle mode

share has occurred in outer London boroughs, and so the Census estimate was

retained.

Following the development of baseline activity as described above, ‘with scheme’

uplifts were then estimated based on benchmarking of the impact of similar

schemes, which are detailed in Table 6-11. These case studies provided evidence on

percentage increases in act ive mode travel result ing from the provision of new

infrastructure. The table indicates that new cycling schemes have the potential to

increase use by up to 200% although lower levels of uplift were reported in many

locations.

98

Table 6-11: Uplift in cycling and walking through infrastructure provision3

Location Intervention Percentage uplift

Manchester Cycle route provision

on Wilmslow Road and

Oxford Road

An increase off 11% on Oxford

Road; 86% on Wilmslow Road after

12 months, 103% after two years

London Two major cycle routes 200% increase on the east-west

route and 124% on the north-south

route

Leeds to

Bradford

14-mile cycle route 51% increase in the first year and a

further 26% increase in the

following year

Cambridge Provision of two cycle

routes into the city

centre

20-30%

London -

Wanstead High

Street

Improvement to

walking routes

98% increase in pedestrian

numbers after enhancing the

walking routes between its two

stations

Sheffield Heart

of the City

Public realm

improvements to the

Peace Garden

35% walking uplift

Altrincham,

Greater

Manchester

Better streets,

pavements and

crossing points

25% walking uplift

Preston,

Fishergate

North and south

pavements, with the

addit ion of pedestrian

crossings

22% walking uplift

An uplift of 75% was applied in this study to estimate the effect of proposed cycling

schemes on activity levels in Packages A and B, with a walking uplift of 15% applied

as a conservat ive estimate. In Package C, uplifts of 100% and 20% respectively were

3 Sources: (Guardian, 2019, ht tps:/ / www.theguardian.com/ environment/ bike-blog/ 2019/ apr/ 26/ if-you-build-

them-they-will-come-record-year-for-cycle-counters; Living Streets, 2018,

applied to account for addit ional opportunit ies to walk and cycling associated with

the pairing of the package with highways Package 3 (the A13 tunnel). An average

cycling speed of 15 kph and a walk speed of 5 kph were also applied in the AMAT

across the board, sourced from the National Travel Survey 2016.

Act ive mode result: Package A

Table 6-12 summarises the forecast baseline 2041 daily walking and cycling trips

to/ from work in areas impacted by Package A active mode provision, and the

assumed uplift result ing from delivering said provision.

Table 6-12: Forecast daily commutes by walk and cycle in areas impacted by Package

A active mode provision in 2041

Without

Package A

With Package

A

Pedestrians 4,292 4,936

Cyclists 1,286 2,250

Total 5,578 7,187

Table 6-13 then presents the total present value benefits (PVB) calculated by the

AMAT for Package A based on the assumptions described above. The daily forecasts

of trip numbers were annualised by a factor of 253 across an appraisal period of 20

years. This resulted in a PVB of £19.7m (2010 prices and values).

Table 6-13: Present Value of Benefits Package A (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Impact Act ive Mode PVB

Congestion benefit £1,474.60

Accident £57.49

Local Air Quality £20.80

Noise £3.83

Greenhouse Gases £16.74

Reduced risk of premature death £7,800.99

Absenteeism £2,322.62

https:/ / www.livingstreets.org.uk/ media/ 3890/ pedestrian-pound-2018.pdf); Lancashire County Council

data)

99


Journey Ambience £8,002.54

Indirect Taxation -£17.48

Present Value of Benefit £19,682.14

Act ive mode result: Package B


to/ from work in areas impacted by Package B act ive mode provision, and the



B active mode provision in 2041

Without

Package B

With Package

B



Total 5,642 7,299

Table 6-15 then presents total PVB calculated by the AMAT for Package B based on

the assumptions described above. This is forecast at £20.4m (2010 prices and

values).

Table 6-15: Present Value of Benefits Package B (£000s, 2010 prices and values)



Accident £59.66


Noise £3.98







Act ive mode result: Package C


to/ from work in areas impacted by Package C active mode provision, and the



C active mode provision in 2041

Before scheme After scheme



Total 5,642 7,851

Table 6-17 then presents total PVB calculated by the AMAT for Package C based on

the assumptions described above. This is forecast at £25.2m (2010 prices and

values).

Act ive mode PVB for all three packages was then added to the headline PVB figures

that are summarised later in this chapter.

Table 6-17: Present Value of Benefits Package C (£000s, 2010 prices and values)



Accident £79.55


Noise £5.30







100

6.5.4 Air Quality

Package 3 involves the delivery of the A13 tunnel in the long term, which would have

some impact on air quality in the vicinity. Air quality modelling was not within the

scope of this study, but Jacobs air quality specialists who have undertaken analysis

on other tunnel projects were consulted to ascertain whether any preliminary

conclusions could be drawn regarding impacts. The following key points arising from

this consultation were noted:

§ There is no conclusive evidence that tunnels in general deliver overall air quality

benefits, and there are even cases where negative impacts have occurred;

§ Standard technology (for example jet fans) moves part iculates around in the

tunnel, and may cause air quality disbenefits if receptors such as housing are

located close to portals or ventilat ion shafts;

§ Highways England are currently evaluating the use of new ‘clean tunnel’

technology (as is the case overseas), but that technology is currently very

expensive.

Based on the above, no addit ional benefits have been added to the appraisal to

account for air quality impacts. Modelling will be required to forecast these impacts

if Package 3 is progressed.

6.5.5 Present Value of Costs (PVC)

Scheme costs were derived using a benchmarking approach. As schemes are

developed, a detailed costing exercise will be required to update the VfM assessment

described in this report.

The tables below summarise the estimated capital expenditure (capex) required to

deliver each package, using a 2020 price base (undiscounted) inclusive of Optimism

Bias and risk. Based on the DfT TAG Unit A1.2, the highways schemes and all Public

Transport schemes excluding rail have been uplift by 44% to account for Optimism

Bias. Rail capex has been uplifted by 66%.

Table 6-18: Highway package headline capital expenditure (£000s, 2020 prices,

undiscounted)

Package Capital cost estimate


replacement package)

£106,500

Package 2 (Lodge Avenue extended

underpass package)

£256,500

Package 3 (A13 tunnel; Lodge Avenue

interim at-grade scheme)

£861,500

Table 6-19: Sustainable transport package headline capital expenditure (£000s,

2020 prices, undiscounted)

Package Capital cost estimate



Package C (‘network development’) £684,634

Operat ional expenditure (opex) was also estimated using a benchmarking approach

for Public Transport schemes – this covers the cost of running addit ional services

requiring new vehicles and roll ing stock and has been assessed across the 60-year

appraisal period. For rail it only applies to schemes involving frequency

enhancements such as those modelled for the Overground Extension and the C2C

Rainham Loop line, which appear in every package. The introduction of new stat ions

at Castle Green and the HS1 connection at Dagenham Dock are not assumed to

result in any addit ional service operation costs on the basis that the service would be

provided by exist ing roll ing stock on the network. Maintenance costs associated with

the provision of new highway and sustainable transport infrastructure has been

excluded from the VfM assessment at this stage.

Potential fare revenues for bus and rail have also been estimated to generate net

opex estimates. Forecast change in passenger-kms was extracted from Railplan for

each package when compared to the ‘High Growth’ baseline. For rail, an average 16

pence-per-passenger-km fare yield was then assumed to estimate the revenue

implication of the change in passenger-kms. For bus, the Greater London Authority’s

‘Bus services in London’ report indicated that in 2013, 74% of bus operat ing costs

were recovered through fare revenue. This % was applied as a benchmark in this

study to estimate net bus opex.

101

Table 6-20: Sustainable transport package headline operational expenditure (£000s,

2020 prices, undiscounted)

Mode Package A Package B Package C

Rail £2,749,302 £2,749,302 £2,749,302

Bus £137,440 £519,923 £417,916

River services £6,875 £6,875 £6,875

Total £2,893,617 £3,276,100 £3,174,093

Following guidance set out in TAG Unit A1.2, base costs were adjusted to a 2010

price base using GDP deflators from the TAG Databook (2020), discounted across

the appraisal period to a 2010 present value, and then uplifted by a factor of 1.19 to

produce estimates in market prices. The resultant PVC for each of the packages is

provided in the tables below.

Table 6-21: Highways - Present Value of Costs (£000s, 2010 prices, 2010 present

value)

Package PVC

Package 1 (Lodge Avenue flyover replacement) £35,861

Package 2 (Lodge Avenue extended underpass) £132,920

Package 3 (A13 tunnel; interim Lodge Avenue at-grade) £348,019

Table 6-22: Sustainable transport - Present Value of Costs (£000s, 2010 prices,

2010 present value)

Package PVC



Package 3 (‘network development’) £1,086,796

6.5.6 Value for Money

The benefits and costs described in this sect ion of the report were combined to

generate a Level 1 and Level 2 Benefit-Cost Rat io (BCR). Level 1 compares transport

user benefits with cost , while Level 2 also includes Wider Economic Impacts.

The results of the VfM assessment are summarised in Table 6-23. All the sustainable

transport packages resulted in BCRs above 2 : 1 in terms of conventional transport

benefits, categorised as ‘High’ VfM by the DfT. A higher return is forecast as the level

of investment is increased, with the highest cost in Package C result ing in the highest

BCR of 3.2 : 1.

Package 1 (Lodge Avenue flyover replacement) returned the highest BCR of the

three highway packages purely from the perspect ive of highway benefits (consist ing

largely of congestion relief and resultant vehicle journey t ime savings). This was

driven primarily by significantly lower costs in this package when compared to the

other opt ions – default flyover replacement costs were assumed to be applicable in

the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario, meaning that this element of Package 1 was effect ively

cost neutral in the appraisal. The resultant BCR resulted in a categorisation of ‘Very

High’ VfM based on DfT guidance.

However, significant issues were noted with this option related to the potential for

improving sustainable mode provision north-south through the Lodge Avenue

junct ion, part icularly related to walking and cycling. In this respect, Package 1 would

offer the lowest return in terms of fulfil l ing LBBD and TfL policy object ives to achieve

modal shift and encourage greater use of sustainable modes of transport.

Package 2 (including the Lodge Avenue extended underpass scheme) resulted in

similar highway benefits to Package 1. The overall cost would be significantly higher

than Package 1, reducing the BCR comparatively but st il l result ing in a ‘High’ VfM

rat ing based on DfT guidance. Package 2 would also create more opportunity to

improve north-south sustainable mode provision through the Lodge Avenue

junct ion. The removal of the flyover and the provision of an extended deck underpass

would free up significantly more at-grade space to provide bus lanes and segregated

walking/ cycling links through the junct ion connect ing areas to the north with the

Castle Green development site. The removal of an aerial road structure would also

likely deliver some localised noise and public realm benefits around the junct ion

when compared with Package 1.

Package 3 (A13 tunnel) overall would deliver the lowest absolute highway benefits

and the lowest VfM rat ing with a BCR of 1.1 : 1. In the longer-term, the tunnel would

result in improved road network performance around the Lodge Avenue and Renwick

Road junctions, but is also likely to att ract more traffic onto the A13 corridor and

consequently release more traffic into pinch-points further to the west in the

morning peak, notably the Movers Lane underpass and the junct ion with the A406

102

North Circular. In the short/ medium-term, banning the right turn from Ripple Road

and Lodge Avenue onto the A13 westbound as part of an interim at-grade solution

would result in increased journey t imes for traffic originat ing north of the A13,

part icularly in the morning peak.

103

Table 6-23: Value for Money summary (£000s, 2010 prices and values)Table 6-24: Value for Money summary (£000s, 2010 prices and values)

Mode Transport user

benefits

PVC Level 1

BCR

Wider Economic

Impacts

Level 2 PVB

(transport user

benefits + Wider

Impacts)

Level 2

BCR

DfT Value

for Money

rating

(Level 2)

Highways packages


replacement package)£459,319 £35,861 12.8 £44,607 £503,926 14.1 ‘Very high’

Package 2 (Lodge Avenue extended

underpass package)£453,049 £132,920 3.4 £43,913 £496,962 3.7 ‘High’

Package 3 (A13 tunnel; interim Lodge

Avenue at-grade)£366,228 £348,019 1.1 £33,726 £399,953 1.1 ‘Low’

Sustainable transport packages

Package A (‘sweat ing assets’) £1,487,784 £698,706 2.1 £178,084 £1,665,868 2.4 ‘High’

Package B (‘route enhancement’) £2,527,110 £928,426 2.7 £304,250 £2,831,360 3.0 ‘High’

Package C (‘network development’) £3,132,350 £1,086,796 2.9 £376,581 £3,508,932 3.2 ‘High’

104

7. Conclusions and next steps

7.1 Overview of study background and approach

This study was undertaken with the aim of developing a transport strategy for the

LROA within LBBD, highlighting proposals that can be delivered in the short-term (0-

5 years), medium-term (5-10 years), and long-term (10-20 years).

The plan was required to support delivery of new housing and employment identified

in the LBBD Local Plan and the London Plan in a manner consistent with the aims of

LBBD’s Third Local Implementation Plan (LIP3) and the Mayor of London’s Transport

Strategy (MTS). It was required to support delivery of the CoLC’s MCP to relocate

three historic wholesale markets on to the site of the former Barking Reach power

station on Chequers Lane. And it was required to identify a solution to replace the

A13 Lodge Avenue flyover, which is past its design life and overdue for replacement.

Relevant Government policy and strategy at a nat ional, regional and local level was

reviewed alongside previous transport studies undertaken in the study area. The

current transport situation was assessed, leading to the identification of key

challenges. Forecast housing and employment growth were then analysed to

determine how those challenges may evolve in future in a ‘do minimum’ scenario.

This scenario, referred to in this report as the ‘High Growth’ baseline, assumed the

delivery of 44,000 new homes in the study area by 2041 in l ine with the LBBD’s Local

Plan housing trajectory; TfL’s ‘Reference Case’ employment trajectory (in l ine with

the latest London Plan); and full delivery of the CoLC’s MCP by 2025. TfL’s ‘Reference

Case’ transport intervention scenario was also assumed, including committed

transport schemes and identified MTS priorit ies. In the study area, a l ike-for- l ike

replacement of the Lodge Avenue was also assumed in the ‘do minimum’.

The policy review and the assessment of current and future transport challenges

were used to identify appropriate transport strategy object ives for the study area and

an appraisal framework based on TfL Strategic Appraisal Framework (SAF) guidance

and DfT Early Assessment and Sift ing Tool (EAST) guidance. The framework was

linked to strategy objectives to focus scheme appraisal on desirable outcomes.

A long list of potential transport interventions in and around the study area was then

developed. The start ing point for developing this l ist was exist ing proposals from

previous studies and aspirat ions referenced in London-wide and LBBD policy

documents. These proposals were then reviewed in terms of their modal and

geographic coverage and with reference to transport strategy objectives to identify

potential gaps. New proposals were then generated by the study team to fill

identified gaps. The complete long-list included mult i-modal transport options

addressing connect ivity issues within the study area and along six key movement

corridors connecting the study area to surrounding areas. It also included demand

management measures. The final l ist included a total of 105 discrete intervention

options.

7.2 Shortlisted options

The long-list was then sifted using the appraisal framework to identify short- l isted

transport interventions, accounting for dependencies and delivery t imescales. Short-

l isted schemes were then assembled into packages for further appraisal. Three

packages of highway schemes were assembled as follows, with intervention focused

on four key junct ions along the A13 (Movers Lane/ River Road; Ripple Road/ Lodge

Avenue; Renwick Road; and the Goresbrook Interchange):

§ Package 1: default Lodge Avenue flyover replacement, with incremental

improvements at the other junctions (lowest cost package overall, and with least

upfront cost).

§ Package 2: Lodge Avenue ‘extended underpass’ scheme, with incremental

improvements at the other junct ions (medium cost package overall, but with the

most upfront cost) – extended underpass scheme assumed as follows:

- A13 underground for 150-200 metres at Ripple Road/ Lodge Avenue

junct ion.

- Short-term delivery within five years (avoiding an ‘at grade’ option at

Lodge Avenue in the short-term).

- ‘On-corridor’ scheme (taking place in advance of clearance of Castle Green

site for development).

§ Package 3: A13 tunnel in the long-term, with an at-grade Lodge Avenue

junct ion in the short/ medium-term (assumes flyover must be taken down in

short-term); incremental improvements at other junct ions (highest overall cost)

– tunnel scheme assumed as follows:

- Approximate length of 1.3km, bypassing Lodge Avenue and Renwick Road

junct ions.

105

- Cut-and-cover construction method assumed, through cleared Castle

Green development site to south of current A13 alignment.

- Free to use following opening, with no user charge applied in the appraisal.

A key feature of the proposed at-grade Lodge Avenue junct ion design in the

short/ medium-term would be a ban on right-turning movements from Ripple Road

and Lodge Avenue onto the A13 westbound. This would reduce traffic demand at the

junct ion and was paired with complementary improvements at the Goresbrook

Interchange and the Movers Lane/ River Road junction to accommodate addit ional

traffic to/ from the north of the A13 divert ing to use these junct ions due to the right-

turn ban.

Sustainable measures (walking, cycling and Public Transport schemes) were also

assembled into three packages as follows:

§ Package A ‘sweating assets’: largely focused on upgrading exist ing Public

Transport provision, and including the following key elements:

- Barking station and Dagenham Dock station upgrades.

- C2C ‘Rainham Loop’ l ine / Barking Riverside Overground Extension

frequency upgrades.

- EL2 and EL3 bus route frequency upgrades.

- Re-routing of 145 bus route via Dagenham Dock development sites.

- New EL4 Riverside-Heathway bus route.

§ Package B ‘route enhancements’: incremental to Package A, providing

addit ional enhancement largely on exist ing corridors, including:

- New Overground railway station at Castle Green on the Barking Riverside

Overground Extension line.

- ‘City in the East’ transit upgrade (new priority measures along the new EL4

route via Choats Manor Way and the Goresbrook Interchange).

- New ‘Ripple Road-Renwick Road’ bus route with associated priority

measures via the Castle Green development site.

- New ‘Riverside-Rainham’ bus route with associated priority measures via

Barking Reach.

§ Package C ‘network development’: incremental to Package B, with addit ional

enhancement focused on opening new routes into the study area, including:

- New HS1 railway station at Dagenham Dock, providing a direct rail

connection to Strat ford and St. Pancras.

- Provision of an underpass reconnecting Chequers Lane north and south of

the C2C rail l ine, allowing ‘City in the East’ transit to divert via the MCP site.

- A new BRT connect ion (with safeguarding for future upgrade to DLR)

between Castle Green and Beckton via a new bridge over the River Roding.

For testing purposes, Packages 1 and A were paired as the ‘lowest cost / smallest

change’ impact package, scaling up to the pairing of Packages 2 and B and finally 3

and C as the ‘highest cost / biggest impact ’ package. These pairings were developed

purely for testing purposes, although care was taken to ensure that highway and

sustainable mode measures in each package pairing were compatible.

Some schemes on the long-list (part icularly demand management measures and

smaller walking/ cycling schemes) were identified as complementary measures.

Their cumulat ive impact when combined with the preferred package of measures

taken forward can be tested during subsequent stages of work.

Indicative designs for the highway schemes were then developed, tested using local

junct ion modelling software, and refined prior to commencement of the appraisal of

the short- l isted options.

7.3 Summary of short- list appraisal

7.3.1 Sustainable transport packages

All the sustainable transport packages resulted in Benefit-Cost Rat ios (BCRs) of

above 2 : 1 in terms of conventional t ransport benefits, categorised as ‘High’ VfM by

the DfT. A higher return is forecast as the level of investment is increased, with the

highest cost Package C result ing in the highest BCR.

The introduction of Castle Green stat ion and new bus transit connections resulted in

significant addit ional benefits in Package B when compared with Package A. In turn,

the provision of a new HS1 stat ion at Dagenham Dock added significant addit ional

benefits in Package C.

106

7.3.2 Highway packages

Package 1 (Lodge Avenue flyover replacement) returned the highest BCR of the

three packages purely from the perspect ive of highway benefits (consist ing largely

of congestion relief and resultant vehicle journey t ime savings), categorised as ‘Very

High’ VfM based on DfT guidance. This was driven primarily by significantly lower

costs in this package when compared to the other options. However, significant

issues were noted related to the potent ial for improving sustainable mode provision

north-south through the Lodge Avenue junct ion, part icularly related to walking and

cycling.

Package 2 (included in the Lodge Avenue extended underpass scheme) resulted in

similar highway benefits to Package 1. The overall cost would be significantly higher

than Package 1, reducing the BCR comparatively but st il l result ing in a ‘High’ VfM

rat ing based on DfT guidance. Package 2 would also create more opportunity to

improve north-south sustainable mode provision through the Lodge Avenue

junct ion, and the removal of the flyover would also likely deliver some localised noise

and public realm benefits compared with Package 1.

Package 3 (A13 tunnel) overall delivers the lowest absolute highway benefits and

the lowest VfM rating. In the longer-term, the tunnel would result in improved road

network performance around the Lodge Avenue and Renwick Road junct ions but is

also likely to attract more traffic onto the A13 corridor and consequently release

more traffic into pinch-points further to the west in the morning peak.

7.3.3 The case for the A13 tunnel

The conventional ‘highways’ case for the A13 tunnel in the long-term (Package 3,

tested in the 2041 forecast scenario) is not as strong as Packages 1 and 2, for reasons

described above. The scheme would also come with higher upfront costs when

compared with Packages 1 and 2.

However, BeFirst ’s proposal to the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review

(CSR) in September 2020 indicated that the tunnel could support up to 30,000 new

homes and high-quality industrial space in the LROA, and up to 6,000 addit ional jobs

through industrial intensificat ion (including enhanced port facil it ies at Dagenham

Dock). This includes directly unlocking 12,000 new homes at Castle Green. In

contrast, housing delivery on the Castle Green site would be more limited with the

other highway options tested during this study (just over 4,000 with the flyover

replacement in Package 1 and between 6,000 and 8,000 with the extended

underpass scheme in Package 2), as would land value uplift and job growth. The

proposal also cites the potent ial delivery of over five hectares of addit ional open

space created by the tunnel, generat ing public realm benefits for local communit ies.

The assessment undertaken as part of this study also does provide a plat form for a

potential t ransport case for investment. The following could create the potential for

higher VfM:

§ Addit ional benefits could be claimed for dependent Public Transport, walking,

and cycling schemes, part icularly in terms of east-west connectivity within the

Castle Green development site and north-south connect ivity (part icularly east

of Lodge Avenue).

§ The configuration and characterist ics of the tunnel could be optimised –

different alignments and lane provision assumptions could be explored to

improve highway benefits (although the same process could be adopted to a

degree for any of the highway packages tested as part of this study).

§ The potential for applying a user charge to the tunnel as a demand

management tool (and a means of improving affordability) could be

investigated, although:

- Developing a robust appraisal is l ikely to be complex and t ime-consuming.

- Potential issues with rat -running on local roads and traffic flow increases

on other strategic roads would need to be carefully managed and

mitigated.

- Implications for certain user groups, stakeholders and the wider public

would need to be considered.

- In their current form, the various A13 tunnel proposals considered as part

of this study would continue to channel traffic into road network pinch-

points further to the west.

In addit ion to a posit ive narrative based on the points summarised above, the

relat ively high level of upfront investment that would be required to deliver the

scheme means that a Business Case would need to demonstrate significant

addit ional benefits above those achieved through lower cost alternatives.

107

7.3.4 The requirement for demand management

All the packages developed during this study would deliver transport benefits (in

most cases to a degree that offers high VfM) and improve road network performance

in the study area. However, the pre-COVID-19 forecasts used in this study indicate

significant increases in demand on transport networks serving the area. This demand

increase combined with significant pinch-points on the networks outside the study

area means that some residual transport challenges will remain.

Combined modelling of the ‘high intervention’ packages (3+C) indicated that even

with extensive investment in rail and bus provision in the area and beyond, forecast

traffic levels on the A13 were not significantly reduced from the ‘do minimum’

scenario.

Major investment to overcome physical capacity constraints on the A13 at Movers

Lane, the A406 junct ion, and the bridges over the C2C railway line and the River

Roding, may also offer diminishing returns as induced demand transfers congestion

issues to other parts of the road network. In addit ion, competing demands for road

space on the A13 from through-traffic and local traffic is always likely to result in

some frict ion.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to ‘trade-off’ local highway impacts in favour of

through movements on the A13 through addit ional demand management

measures. For example, ramp metering could improve mainline traffic flow through

the Movers Lane underpass during peak periods. These benefits would however be

off-set by increasing levels of congestion and rat-running on local roads, which

would need to be managed.

Consequently, regardless of the major highway and Public Transport interventions

that are progressed in the study area, complementary measures should be

developed focusing to a significant degree on limit ing where possible peak transport

demands. Part icularly, the following should be considered:

§ An ambit ious programme to promote and support walking and cycling across

the study area, with measures embedded into new development plans.

§ The potential for increasing parking constraints on new development sites and

exist ing streets, both in terms of supply and parking charges – such measures

could be for example t ied to the delivery of new stat ions.

§ Options for reducing peak-hour vehicle movements from new developments,

noting that very l itt le congestion or delay is evident in future-year inter-peak

model runs.

§ Bringing forward a programme to support mode shift and encourage local

journeys in town centres to the north of the A13, notably Barking town centre.

§ Engagement with Government and service providers on the roll-out of digital

technology to facil itate home-working and online retail ing in the area.

7.4 Summary of conclusions in relation to study objectives

As stated earlier, the client group set out the following three object ives to guide this

study:

§ Support delivery of new housing and employment in the study area identified in

the LBBD Local Plan and the London Plan.

§ Support delivery of the relocation of the wholesale markets to Barking Reach,

referred to as the MCP.

§ Identify a solution to replace the A13 Lodge Avenue flyover, which is past its

design life and overdue for replacement.

In terms of the delivery of new housing and employment, BeFirst ’s CSR proposal

concluded that the A13 tunnel (tested in this study as part of Package 3) would

provide the best long-term potential for meeting the housing targets set out in the

LBBD Local Plan, with lower levels of housing delivered by replacing the flyover

(Package 1) or providing an extended underpass at Lodge Avenue (Package 2). The

modelling undertaken as part of this study however indicates that further work is

required to optimise the alignment and characterist ics of the tunnel proposal to

generate an improved conventional transport business case for the scheme.

It is also clear that elements of the sustainable transport packages (notably the

provision of a new Overground station at Castle Green, an HS1 station at Dagenham

Dock, and supporting rail frequency enhancements and bus improvements) wil l be

important in unlocking key development sites in the study area. Further

development work will be needed to determine the feasibil ity, cost and impact of

these proposals.

108

The modelling of all three highway packages also indicates that regardless of the

package delivered, growth in the study area is l ikely to result in residual transport

challenges without an ambit ious programme to reduce transport demand at peak

times, including promoting walking and cycling as part of new development

proposals and in exist ing town centres; increasing parking constraints; reducing peak

trip generation from development sites (including the MCP site); and encouraging

the roll-out of digital technology to support online working and retail ing.

In terms of supporting the CoLC’s MCP, an opening date of 2025 necessitates a low-

risk, short- term transport solution primarily focused on the capacity of the A13 as

the main artery that wil l be used by delivery drivers to and from the Barking Reach

site. The assessment undertaken during this study indicates that Package 1

(replacement of the flyover at Lodge Avenue plus incremental upgrades to other key

junct ions on the A13) represents the lowest cost solution delivering the highest level

of highway benefits out of all three packages tested, and consequently the highest

‘highways’ VfM.

Added to this, the risks around the delivery of this package are comparat ively low –

the A13 DBFO contractor is contractually obligated to replace the exist ing flyover, a

design has already been developed, and the construct ion programme and impacts

would be less onerous than those associated with the delivery of Package 2. The

scheme would also result in improved network performance on local roads in the

LBBD when compared with the interim ‘at-grade’ solution at Lodge Avenue tested as

part of Package 3, removing the risk of knock-on traffic impacts occurring as a result

of the banning of turning movements required at Lodge Avenue to deliver an

acceptable ‘at-grade’ solution. Progressing Package 1 in the short-term would also

support the third study object ive of identifying a solution to replace the A13 flyover.

Alongside the replacement of the flyover at Lodge Avenue, the upgrade of the

Goresbrook Interchange included within Package 1 is part icularly crit ical for the

delivery of the MCP, and detailed design work and further testing should be

progressed as a short-term priority following this study. In tandem, measures that

would reduce MCP HGV traffic in the study area, including delivering goods via river

or rail terminals (part icularly if the rail service is direct into the market building),

should be explored.

However, the limitations of Package 1 also need to be carefully considered during

scheme development. As noted earlier, the replacement of the flyover offers the

lowest potential for improving sustainable mode provision north-south through the

Lodge Avenue junct ion, part icularly related to walking and cycling, and therefore

cannot be considered a viable long-term solution in terms of fulfil l ing LBBD and TfL

policy objectives to achieve modal shift and encourage greater use of sustainable

modes of transport. Based on analysis undertaken for BeFirst ’s CSR proposal, it also

offers the lowest return in terms of support ing development in the study area.

Consequently, the design development process for the short-term replacement of

the flyover should include any safeguards necessary to avoid precluding tunnelling

of the A13 in the longer-term. In addit ion, the process should also consider how the

design of the structure and the junction underneath could be optimised to minimise

noise and public realm impacts, and facil itate movement across the junct ion for

pedestrians, cyclists and buses.

The A13 is and will remain a key strategic road passing through the study area,

carrying large volumes of traffic (part icularly road freight) between London, Kent,

and the east of England and beyond. It is a crit ical artery for businesses within its wide

catchment (including industrial and logist ics firms and ports) and will be in the near

future for the MCP. It is therefore important that a low-risk solution is delivered

rapidly to mit igate current road network performance issues. Implementing Package

1 in the short-term will deliver this objective. It wil l also reduce financial risks for TfL

associated with the A13 DBFO contract , and reduce potent ial knock-on congestion

impacts of traffic divert ing to other local borough roads and alternative routes on

the Strategic Road Network managed by Highways England.

Part of the challenge on the A13 is created by competit ion for road space on the

corridor between strategic and local traffic, exemplified by high traffic volumes

moving between the A13, Ripple Road, Lodge Avenue, River Road and Movers Lane.

It is therefore important that Package 1 is paired in the short-term with measures to

reduce local demand to use the corridor, as described above. Pursuing the

development of major Public Transport schemes (including new railway stat ions, bus

services and rail frequency enhancements) wil l also reduce car-dependent

developments in the longer-term, helping to relieve pressure on the A13.

In parallel, further development should be undertaken on proposals for the A13

tunnel with a focus on reducing delivery risks and costs and improving the transport

business case for the scheme. This would support with maintaining the function of

the A13 as a key strategic road in the longer-term without hindering the delivery of

the LBBD’s housing targets and local and regional policy objectives to reduce

109

severance, encourage the use of sustainable transport, and improve economic

opportunit ies and health outcomes for local communit ies.

7.5 Next steps

Based on the summary conclusions in the section above, the following next steps are

recommended as short-term priorit ies:

§ The development of Package 1 should be progressed, with a focus on:

- Developing a detailed design for the flyover replacement scheme and

junct ion at Lodge Avenue to improve road network performance; facil itate

movement across the junction for pedestrians, cyclists and buses; minimise

noise and public realm impacts; and include safeguards as required to

avoid precluding tunnelling of the A13 in the longer-term.

- The development of the design to upgrade the Goresbrook Interchange as

a crit ical element of the delivery of the MCP in 2025, considering design

elements to facil itate walking and cycling across the junct ion and the

delivery of the ‘City in the East’ transit proposal connecting LROA to

Dagenham via the A1240 Heathway.

§ All indicat ive junct ion designs in Package 1 should be further tested and refined

through the design process, including testing of cumulative operational impacts

using a micro-simulation model – this should inform more detailed analysis of

the impact of the package on the A13 ‘Design-Build-Finance-Operate’ (DBFO)

contract .

§ An ambit ious package of demand management measures should be developed,

including considerat ion of promoting walking and cycling as part of new

development proposals and in exist ing town centres; increasing parking

constraints; reducing peak trip generation from development sites (including

the MCP site); and encouraging the roll-out of digital technology to support

online working and retail ing.

§ Further work should be undertaken to optimise the alignment and

characterist ics of the A13 tunnel proposal to generate an improved

conventional transport business case for the scheme.

§ Further development work should be undertaken to determine the feasibil ity,

cost and impact of Public Transport proposals that would support significant

new housing development in the study area (including modelling of impacts on

elements such as fare revenues), notably the provision of a new Overground

station at Castle Green, an HS1 stat ion at Dagenham Dock, and supporting rail

frequency enhancements and bus improvements – schemes such as frequency

upgrades on the C2C line and the Overground Extension require detailed

feasibil ity studies to determine delivery/ operational challenges and related

costs, and this study has only provided a very high-level overview.

§ The development of rail proposals in the study area should include early

engagement with the relevant rail authorit ies (Network Rail and HS1 Ltd) and

train operating companies using both the Rainham Loop line and HS1.

§ Further refinement of scheme costs and feasibil ity is required for all proposals

recommended by this study, noting the following:

- No topographic surveys or road safety audits have been undertaken during

the development of highway schemes.

- The feasibil ity and cost of schemes involving major structural works has

been subject to high-level assessment using benchmarks from exist ing

projects, with no detailed design work involved.

§ A more detailed assessment should be undertaken to support the development

of a business case for proposals recommended by this study, including:

- Re-evaluat ion of the transport user benefits as scheme designs are

developed and refined.

- A more detailed assessment of economic Wider Impacts, noting that a

benchmark value has been applied in the high-level, indicative economic

appraisal undertaken as part of this study.

- Inclusion of ‘Level 3’ dependent development impacts within the

assessment of benefits associated with transformat ional schemes such as

the A13 tunnel and the provision of new railway stations.

©Jacobs 2020 1

A

B

North

Circular

junction

Renwick

Road

Goresbrook

Interchange

C

D

E

F

Movers

Lane

Lodge

Avenue

flyover

Journey time key points

Scenario

‘A-B’ Barking Reach (market) – A13 (west of A406

North Circular) via Goresbrook Interchange

‘A-C’ Barking Reach (market) – A406 North Circular

(south) via Goresbrook Interchange and A13

‘A-D’ Barking Reach (market) – A406 North Circular

(north) via Goresbrook Interchange and A13‘B-E’ A13 (west of North Circular) – River Road

‘B-F’ A13 (west of North

Circular) – Renwick

Road

AM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Eastbound

journey

time

(seconds)

AM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

PM peak

Westboun

d journey

time

(seconds)

Do Min 2031 2015 688 647 1299 2191 790 1185 1904 2300 923 929 1943 767 177 677 1208 1456 486

Option 1A 2031 1904 533 548 1239 2076 675 1087 1848 2185 813 849 1860 1043 202 250 549 1375 375

Option 2B 2031 1883 526 540 1243 2056 678 1079 1847 2164 815 838 1879 1085 191 461 838 1319 367

Option 3C 2031 1730 584 678 1220 1949 666 1193 1822 2060 798 1128 1894 1217 173 686 907 657 358

key movers - lbbd

Documents