Development Impact Report Rotherhithe Multi Modal Study
Transcript of 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
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 2 Traffic Flows ...........................33
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 3 Traffic Flows ...........................34
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 1 Traffic Flows ...........................35
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 2 Traffic Flows ...........................36
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 3 Traffic Flows ...........................37
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 4 Traffic Flows ...........................38
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 5 Traffic Flows ...........................39
Figure 6.1.1 Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 6 Traffic Flows ...........................40
© 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
Area/Direction Travel Mode
Trips (in units of 10,000) % Change
Base (2009) 2014 2024 2009-2014
2009-2024
South
wark
Inbound
Car Driver 5.99 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
Area/Direction Travel Mode
Trips (in units of 10,000) % Change
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
+
Figure 6.1-1: Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 2 Traffic Flows
© Mouchel 2010 34
Figure 6.1-2: Diagram of 2009 and 2014 Scenario 3 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2014 Scenario 3= Difference
863 861 861
246 340 236Actual Flows shown in PCUS -617 -521 -626
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
Figure 6.1-3: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 1 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 1= Difference
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
Figure 6.1-4: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 2 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 2= Difference
863 861 861
208 284 149Actual Flows shown in PCUS -655 -577 -712
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
Figure 6.1-5: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 3 Traffic Flows
= 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
Figure 6.1-6: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 4 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 4
= Difference
863 861 861859 858 858
Actual Flows shown in PCUS -4 -4 -3
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
Figure 6.1-7: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 5 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 5
= Difference
863 861 861202 328 229
Actual Flows shown in PCUS -661 -533 -633
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
Figure 6.1-8: Diagram of 2009 and 2024 Scenario 6 Traffic Flows
= Base Year (2009) flows= 2024 Scenario 6
= Difference
863 861 861250 226 295
Actual Flows shown in PCUS -612 -635 -566
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
Brunel Rd Inbound 420 283 299 298 315 298 335
Brunel Rd Outbound 191 125 133 123 130 123 157
Surrey Quay Rd Inbound 1200 962 1016 995 1050 995 1405
Surrey Quay Rd Outbound 1171 870 917 861 908 861 1054
Redriff Rd Inbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redriff Rd Outbound 1393 1310 1382 1301 1372 1301 1934
Bus Lane to Retail Park Inbound 945 801 845 794 838 794 1074
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
Brunel Rd Inbound 219 187 197 194 205 194 206
Brunel Rd Outbound 369 324 343 336 355 336 347
Surrey Quay Rd Inbound 826 783 827 834 880 834 1237
Surrey Quay Rd Outbound 922 857 906 888 939 888 1324
Redriff Rd Inbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redriff Rd Outbound 671 670 707 675 713 675 1019
Bus Lane to Retail Park Inbound 678 685 724 681 720 681 1168
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
Canada Water to Bermondsey Westbound
604 533 562 618 653 618 751
Canada Water to Canary Wharf Eastbound
300 254 268 253 267 253 285
Canary Wharf to Canada Water Westbound
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
Rotherhithe to Canada Water Southbound
0 428 451 448 471 448 561
Surrey Quays to Canada Water Northbound
0 310 328 302 319 302 793
Canada Water to Surrey Quays Southbound
0 540 569 526 554 526 1086
New Cross to Surrey Quays Northbound
0 152 161 152 160 152 205
Surrey Quays to New Cross Southbound
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)
Note: The East London Line was closed due to extension engineering works during 2009
© 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
Canada Water to Bermondsey Westbound
227 202 212 231 242 231 257
Canada Water to Canary Wharf Eastbound
140 121 127 129 135 129 148
Canary Wharf to Canada Water Westbound
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
Rotherhithe to Canada Water Southbound
0 125 130 130 135 130 162
Surrey Quays to Canada Water Northbound
0 71 75 64 68 64 89
Canada Water to Surrey Quays Southbound
0 68 71 67 70 67 101
New Cross to Surrey Quays Northbound
0 29 31 28 30 28 34
Surrey Quays to New Cross Southbound
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)
Note: The East London Line was closed due to extension engineering works during 2009
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL
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
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd
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
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
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
Base Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
A100 Rotherhithe TunnelNB 94 98 62 54 105 50 53 94 47 32
A100 Rotherhithe TunnelSB 109 109 114 130 109 138 129 109 131 159
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 60 61 23 10 60 10 10 98 12 6
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 85 89 49 103 94 112 109 92 117 122
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL
station) EB 7 7 5 3 8 5 3 7 5 5
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL
station) WB 40 41 27 26 41 24 31 37 26 35
Surrey Quays RoadNB 26 28 37 34 30 33 35 96 43 42
Surrey Quays RoadSB 55 55 25 47 58 25 52 72 63 64
Evelyn StreetWB 56 63 54 110 77 68 110 98 71 110
Evelyn StreetEB 54 54 47 48 57 45 52 55 40 63
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd
and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 6
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd
and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 67 73 79 132 80 79 138 79 85 133
Hawkstone RoadNB 101 101 102 135 101 101 138 101 88 133
Hawkstone RoadSB 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
Jamaica RoadEB 100 103 102 103 101 106 104 101 104 105
Jamaica RoadWB 90 88 53 68 96 35 68 101 52 40
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) WB 5 7 7 8 7 7 8 7 7 7
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) EB 41 43 58 43 49 105 47 108 122 104
Rotherhithe Old Rd NBNB 29 31 32 28 33 33 29 35 37 45
2014 2024DirectionSite Discription
Table 6.3-2: Degree of Saturation - Key Links PM Period
© Mouchel 2010 49
2009
Base Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
A100 Rotherhithe TunnelNB 74 84 18 27 99 19 23 92 31 31
A100 Rotherhithe TunnelSB 109 109 226 149 109 220 156 109 153 136
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 59 68 3 4 66 2 4 94 6 8
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 71 90 126 116 97 132 119 98 123 113
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL
station) EB 5 7 5 4 8 5 4 8 5 6
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and LUL
station) WB 35 41 21 21 42 24 24 40 30 21
Surrey Quays RoadNB 39 45 33 34 43 35 34 95 41 42
Surrey Quays RoadSB 54 56 16 50 59 24 53 65 67 59
Evelyn StreetWB 71 78 81 109 79 85 110 85 88 111
Evelyn StreetEB 63 63 63 57 63 63 59 63 58 62
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd
and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 5 6 6 9 5 6 9 5 6 9
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone Rd
and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 74 75 82 132 79 83 133 80 93 134
Hawkstone RoadNB 53 100 93 131 101 91 132 101 73 132
Hawkstone RoadSB 2 2 2 24 2 2 27 2 2 19
Jamaica RoadEB 101 101 104 105 101 104 106 101 105 105
Jamaica RoadWB 100 100 100 56 100 100 48 101 40 68
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) WB 5 7 5 12 7 6 12 8 7 12
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) EB 30 47 47 46 53 62 46 100 108 74
Rotherhithe Old Rd NBNB 32 33 34 41 35 34 43 36 38 41
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
INNER LONDON BOROUGHS
Camden Council 104099 107835 115947 3736 11848
City of London Council 5134 5646 6775 512 1641
Hackney Council 94312 100299 114584 5987 20272
Hammersmith and Fulham Council 82087 85325 92338 3238 10251
Haringey Council 100774 104613 115168 3839 14394
Islington Council 91918 98561 113173 6643 21255
Kensington and Chelsea Council 89140 91856 97928 2716 8789
Lambeth Council 126232 132617 148007 6385 21775
Lewisham Council 114179 119530 132876 5351 18696
Newham Council 107957 124960 161869 17004 53913
Southwark Council 116360 125398 144187 9038 27828
Tower Hamlets Council 99045 115183 149697 16137 50652
Wandsworth Council 126184 131853 143795 5669 17610
Westminster Council 106013 111140 121887 5126 15874
OUTER LONDON BOROUGHS
Barking and Dagenham Council 74203 80226 94279 6023 20076
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
Greenwich Council 106504 117402 141254 10898 34750
Harrow Council 84761 87683 94148 2921 9386
Havering Council 97853 101290 110030 3437 12177
Hillingdon Council 103770 106797 113650 3028 9880
Hounslow Council 88633 91430 98883 2798 10250
Kingston upon Thames Council 67176 69740 75396 2564 8220
Merton Council 84757 87544 93686 2788 8929
Redbridge Council 102182 108470 121896 6288 19714
Richmond upon Thames Council 82772 84872 89694 2100 6922
Sutton Council 81077 83624 89338 2547 8262
Waltham Forest Council 95096 98802 108605 3706 13509
Southwark Council
Boroughs surrounding Southwark
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
INNER LONDON BOROUGHS
Camden Council 117654 123765 133908 6110 16254
City of London Council 4930 5464 6522 534 1592
Hackney Council 108505 115064 127126 6559 18622
Hammersmith and Fulham Council 90545 95264 101910 4720 11365
Haringey Council 112618 116573 124812 3955 12194
Islington Council 107637 115446 128591 7809 20954
Kensington and Chelsea Council 95337 99564 106849 4227 11512
Lambeth Council 144344 152335 165703 7991 21359
Lewisham Council 128995 135938 146533 6943 17538
Newham Council 141712 158641 188858 16929 47146
Southwark Council 142854 154062 170032 11208 27178
Tower Hamlets Council 125993 143617 176086 17624 50093
Wandsworth Council 163758 171024 183142 7266 19385
Westminster Council 127496 136321 149720 8825 22224
OUTER LONDON BOROUGHS
Barking and Dagenham Council 78134 84849 95754 6714 17620
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
Greenwich Council 111202 122254 140883 11052 29681
Harrow Council 100790 102862 106205 2072 5415
Havering Council 106466 109206 112783 2741 6317
Hillingdon Council 114001 120179 126819 6178 12818
Hounslow Council 113519 118369 125546 4850 12027
Kingston upon Thames Council 78304 81600 85765 3296 7461
Merton Council 94745 98593 103783 3848 9037
Redbridge Council 126550 133038 143109 6488 16559
Richmond upon Thames Council 88782 93211 99257 4429 10475
Sutton Council 92116 95241 98603 3124 6486
Waltham Forest Council 110141 114099 121609 3959 11469
Southwark Council
Boroughs surrounding Southwark
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
Note: Figures in brackets represent private travel (car) trip proportion
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
Note: Figures in brackets represent private travel (car) trip proportion
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 561 635 270 239 734 295 270 838 331 292
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 975 1059 742 855 1109 687 946 1097 759 1143
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
LUL station) EB 695 723 448 429 759 496 495 642 544 742
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
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
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone
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
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) WB 424 433 504 742 446 642 916 542 731 806
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) EB 540 555 492 282 576 627 423 763 847 539
© Mouchel 2010 F67
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 1122 1174 745 652 1261 602 635 1125 561 377
A100 Rotherhithe Tunnel SB 861 861 599 340 861 284 344 858 328 226
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 905 938 438 240 930 296 264 1495 313 267
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 1023 1068 468 690 1130 444 729 1108 633 743
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
LUL station) EB 680 716 521 347 759 513 344 736 495 514
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
LUL station) WB 747 770 507 262 757 446 313 683 488 348
Surrey Quays Road NB 264 280 365 336 303 331 346 964 426 417
Surrey Quays Road SB 279 283 269 512 294 274 559 369 677 690
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
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone
Rd and Rotherhithe New Road) WB 519 572 598 649 556 569 673 497 452 570
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone
Rd and Rotherhithe New Road) EB 654 708 764 711 771 769 703 770 828 842
Hawkstone Road NB 440 441 444 375 440 441 383 441 381 370
Hawkstone Road SB 21 21 20 21 22 20 22 17 15 19
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
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) WB 510 659 675 764 708 695 832 692 691 650
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
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
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 892 1011 217 323 1187 231 287 1101 374 376
A100 Rotherhithe Tunnel SB 861 860 146 236 860 149 215 858 229 295
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
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) EB 856 997 193 155 979 217 160 1419 219 220
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
Rotherhithe Tunnel Roundabout) WB 850 1081 303 801 1169 365 862 1175 625 1003
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
LUL station) EB 458 683 513 417 755 507 425 754 472 571
Lower Road (between Surrey Quays Rd and
LUL station) WB 660 758 386 212 792 456 235 745 559 212
Surrey Quays Road NB 386 446 335 335 427 347 340 949 407 418
Surrey Quays Road SB 371 387 175 544 406 258 573 448 729 636
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
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone
Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) WB 507 551 584 853 535 608 853 528 572 853
Rotherhithe New Road (between Hawkstone
Rd and Rotherhithe Old Road) EB 715 730 798 840 764 809 840 777 900 851
Hawkstone Road NB 233 436 407 364 442 397 365 441 319 366
Hawkstone Road SB 24 25 23 286 26 23 333 22 20 231
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
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
Road) WB 492 655 493 1164 749 586 1198 751 734 1159
Rotherhithe New Road (south of Raymouth
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