Crofton Park stakeholder meeting scoring criteria - London Rail

8/14/2019 Crofton Park stakeholder meeting scoring criteria - London Rail

1/11

Appendix A Scoring criteria

IntroductionEast London Line Phase 2 services between Dalston Junction and ClaphamJunction will start operating in 2012, completing the Overground orbital network. At

the same time, the existing South London Line service between London Bridge andVictoria will cease to operate because Thameslink programme construction workswill be commencing at London Bridge which reduces the capacity available forterminating services. Some stations on the South London Line will thereforeexperience a reduction or loss of services to Victoria.

A study is currently underway to identify whether any service changes can beimplemented which would enable this gap to be mitigated. A long list of potentialschemes has been developed. This long list will be sifted to create a short list ofschemes that are potentially viable. The short listed schemes will then be assessedin more detail to determine whether they are operationally feasible, the capital cost ofimplementing them and the ongoing operating cost, as well as the forecast revenuegenerated and the social benefits that would result from their implementation. Thebest option(s) can then be identified.

This note describes a proposed scoring methodology which would allow the long listof schemes to be reduced to a short list.

Overview of proposed methodology

The methodology proposed takes into account five different sets of scores which

focus on different areas of the sifting:

fit with Mayoral transport objectives

whether the scheme addresses some or all of the post-SLL service gaps ateach relevant station

the scale of impact upon passengers of the scheme

the indicative cost of the scheme

the deliverability of the scheme

The methodology proposed is similar to that adopted in TfLs Rail Corridor Plans,with the key modifications being scoring of the schemes against the specific service

gaps at each station and the use of the latest Mayoral transport objectives beingdeveloped for the new Mayors Transport Strategy (MTS). The scoring for theprevious RCP work used central Government objectives, Mayoral London Planobjectives and TfL strategic priorities instead of MTS objectives.

A score will be developed using the MTS objectives and station gaps and this is thenweighted using the scale of impact and indicative cost criteria to develop an overallscore. The calculation proposed is described later in this note. This score will then beused in association with a deliverability score. The deliverability score will in effectdetermine whether or not the scheme can go ahead. If a scheme scores highly interms of transport benefits but is not considered to be deliverable it will therefore notbe short listed.


2/11


3/11

Sundays. At South Bermondsey, Queens Road Peckham, Clapham High Street andWandsworth Road there is no longer any Victoria service under current plans.

A scoring system has been developed to identify whether the proposed scheme onthe long list addresses the gaps at these locations. As the gap and all schemes have

the same effect on Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations (andbecause passenger demand at these stations is considerably less than at PeckhamRye and Denmark Hill) these stations will be considered together. Likewise SouthBermondsey and Queens Road Peckham will be considered together as the numberof passengers from these stations currently travelling to Victoria is lower than atPeckham Rye and Denmark Hill.

The proposed scoring is shown in Table 2. Again, a score out of 3 is applied to eachstation(s).

Table 2 Station gaps scoring

Stations Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3 NotesSouthBermondsey /Queens RoadPeckham

Does notaddressgap atthesestations

Partiallyaddressesgap at thesestations

Fullyaddressesgap at thesestations

Gap: loss of Victoriaservice at all times

Peckham Rye Does notaddressgap at thisstation

Partiallyaddressesgap at thisstation

Fullyaddressesgap at thisstation

Gaps: reduction inVictoria service08:00-20:00weekdays andSaturdays, loss ofVictoria service atother times

Denmark Hill Does notaddressgap at thisstation

Partiallyaddressesgap at thisstation

Fullyaddressesgap at thisstation

Gaps: reduction inVictoria service08:00-20:00weekdays andSaturdays, loss ofVictoria service atother times

Clapham HighStreet /WandsworthRoad

Does notaddressgap atthesestations

Partiallyaddressesgap at thesestations

Fullyaddressesgap at thesestations

Gap: loss of Victoriaservice at all times

Again, these scores will be added together to give a score out of 12. As addressingthe gaps is considered to be at least twice as important as meeting the MTSobjectives, an overall factor of 2 will be applied to weight these scores accordingly.


4/11

Scale of impact on passengers

A weighting needs to be applied to the overall score to identify the number of peoplewho would be affected by the proposed scheme. There is little value in progressing ascheme that in theory has very good transport benefits if very few passengers would

be in a position to take advantage of these benefits. The weighting is based on theimpact the scheme would have and the number of passengers that would beaffected. A ten-point scoring system is proposed, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Scale of impact weighting

Weighting score Scale of impact weighting Passengers affected

1Negligible impact on negligiblenumber

< 0.25m passengers peryear

2Negligible impact on smallnumber

Around 2.5m passengersper year

3Small impact on small number Around 2.5m passengers

per year

4Small impact on mediumnumber

Around 5m passengers peryear

5

Large impact on small number Around 2.5m passengersper year

Medium impact on mediumnumber


Small impact on large number Around 7.5m passengersper year

6 Medium impact on largenumber Around 7.5m passengersper year

7Large impact on mediumnumber


8Large impact on large number Around 7.5m passengers

per year

9

Very large impact on largenumber

Around 7.5m passengersper year

Large impact on very largenumber

> 10m passengers per year

10

Very large impact on very large

number

> 10m passengers per year

It is proposed that the sum of the scores for MTS objectives and station gaps ismultiplied by the scale of impact score to give a weighted score at this stage. In thisway the schemes which have the greatest beneficial impact on the highest numbersof passengers will be more likely to be short listed.

Indicative cost

Throughout this study, it is paramount that the potential funding opportunities for anymitigation is borne in mind. There is little chance of any scheme which requiressignificant capital investment proceeding, as neither TfL nor the DfT have availablefunding to deliver this. The potential operating costs of the schemes also need to be


5/11

considered as if the operating costs are high it is unlikely that sufficient revenue willbe generated to cover the costs so an ongoing subsidy would be required. Theproposed scoring for costs is set out on a ten point scale in Table 4 below.

Table 4 Indicative cost weightingWeighting score Indicative cost weighting

1 Very low cost

2 Low cost

3 Low to small cost

4 Small cost

5 Small to medium cost

6 Medium cost

7 Medium to high cost

8 High cost

9 Very high cost10 Very major projects

The capital cost and operating cost ranges relevant to each weighting score have notyet been decided as the likely cost of implementing each scheme has not yet beenassessed. Once costs have been assessed appropriate ranges will be developed foruse in the indicative cost weighting to ensure a sensible weighting can be used.Ranges will be developed for the present value of the capital costs of implementing(including infrastructure works, rolling stock modifications, etc.) and the presentvalue of annual operating costs.

The total score at this stage will be divided by the indicative cost weighting to give anoverall weighted score for each scheme. This methodology will mean that schemeswith high capital and/or operating costs will have a worse score than cheaperschemes.

Calculation of weighted score

The overall scoring procedure described above can be summarised by the formulabelow:

Weighted score =

[ (MTS objectives scores) + 2 * (Station gaps scores)] * Scale of impact scoreIndicative cost score

This formula emulates the calculation of the benefit-cost ratio, albeit in qualitativeterms.


6/11

Deliverability

It is proposed that the weighted score is considered alongside a further score fordeliverability, since it is not worth pursuing a scheme further if it is not considered tobe deliverable.

Issues that will be considered for deliverability include:

operational/timetabling feasibility

complexity of implementing

performance/reliability impact

acceptability to passengers

political acceptability

Whilst acceptability to passengers would in part be indicated by the revenue andsocial benefits generated, under deliverability other passenger issues, such aschanges in central London terminal choices, will be considered. It is not necessary toconsider the deliverability of infrastructure in this score because this is captured inthe indicative cost weighting.

The proposed deliverability scores are shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Deliverability scores

Deliverability score Indicative cost weighting1 Apparently infeasible

2 Very complex and slow to deliver3 Complex to deliver, long lead time

4 Complex to deliver, medium lead time

5 Medium complexity to deliver, long lead time

6 Medium complexity to deliver, medium lead time

7 Medium complexity to deliver, quick lead time

8 Little complexity, medium lead time

9 Little complexity, quick lead time

10 Easy and quick or immediate to deliver

Schemes which can be implemented easily will therefore score highly on thiscriterion.

Short listing

It is desirable that a relatively small number of schemes (approximately five) aretaken forward from the long list to the short list. If too many schemes are short listedthen it will not be feasible to undertake a sufficiently robust assessment of theschemes in the time available for the study.

It is proposed that a threshold system is used to determine which schemes are taken

forward. Thresholds on the weighted score and deliverability score will be


7/11

determined to ensure that a sensible number of options are taken forward. The valueof the thresholds can only be determined once all options have been scored.

It is likely that the threshold system will work as follows:

schemes with a weighted score below a minimum threshold value will bediscarded with no need to consider deliverability

schemes with a medium weighted score between the minimum thresholdand a medium threshold score will be short listed provided their deliverabilityscore is above a high threshold value

schemes with a weighted score above the medium threshold (i.e. thoseschemes with a high weighted score) will be shortlisted if their deliverabilitybetween a minimum threshold value and the high threshold value

any scheme with a deliverability score below the minimum threshold value willbe discarded regardless of its weighted score

Using the methodology set out in this note a small number of schemes will be shortlisted for further detailed analysis.


8/11

Appendix B Map of rail network


9/11

Appendix C Long list of options

Glossary

East London Line (ELL) South London Line (SLL) Trains per hour (tph)

OPTION DN A: Do Nothing (East London Line extension Phase 2: 4 trains per hour

to Clapham Junction only)

OPTION ELL A: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2

trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria

OPTION ELL B: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 4

trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria

OPTION ELL C: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2

trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Victoria with Victoria

services changing identity between London Overground and Southern services at

Wandsworth Road

OPTION ELL D: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 2

trains per hour to Clapham Junction and 2 trains per hour to Battersea Park

OPTION ELL E: East London Line extension Phase 2 alternative service pattern: 4

trains per hour to Victoria with Victoria services changing identity between London

Overground and Southern services at Wandsworth Road

OPTION SLL A: Retain existing South London Line service (2 trains per hour

between London Bridge and Victoria)

OPTION SLL B: Alternative South London Line service (2 trains per hour between

Charing Cross and Victoria)

OPTION SLL C: No East London Line Phase 2 service and replaced with 2tph

between London Bridge and Victoria

OPTION CATFORD LOOP A: Additional 2 trains per hour service betweenBellingham and Victoria

OPTION CATFORD LOOP B: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Bromley

South and Victoria via the Catford Loop

OPTION CATFORD LOOP C: Additional 2 trains per hour service between

Orpington and Victoria via the Catford Loop

OPTION HITHER GREEN A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Hither

Green and Victoria 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays


10/11

OPTION SIDCUP A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Sidcup and

Willesden Junction via the South London Line

OPTION ORPINGTON A: Additional stops in 2 out of the existing 4 trains per hour

service between Orpington and Victoria at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth

Road

OPTION ORPINGTON B: Additional stops in existing 4 trains per hour service

between Orpington and Victoria at Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road

OPTION NORWOOD JN A: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Norwood

Junction and Victoria via Tulse Hill

OPTION HAYES A: Replace existing 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and

Charing Cross with new 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and Victoria

OPTION HAYES B: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Hayes and Victoria

06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays

OPTION HAYES C: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Beckenham

Junction and Victoria via the Hayes branch 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day

Sundays

OPTION SUTTON A: Replace existing 2 trains per hour service between Wimbledon

loop and the Thameslink route with new 2 trains per hour service between the

Wimbledon loop and Victoria via Tulse Hill

OPTION DARTFORD A: Change existing 2 trains per hour service between Dartford

and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at regular intervals

OPTION DARTFORD B: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between

Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at 3 trains per hour frequency

throughout peak periods

OPTION DARTFORD C: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between

Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath to operate at 4 trains per hour frequencythroughout peak periods

OPTION DARTFORD D: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Dartford and

Victoria via Bexleyheath 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays

OPTION DARTFORD E: Additional stops in existing 2 trains per hour service

between Dartford and Victoria via Bexleyheath at Clapham High Street and

Wandsworth Road

OPTION DARTFORD F: Additional 2 trains per hour service between Dartford andVictoria via Sidcup 06:00 - 08:00, 20:00 - 00:00 and all day Sundays


11/11

OPTION THAMESLINK A: Enhance existing 2 trains per hour service between

Catford Loop and Thameslink route via Blackfriars to operate at 4 trains per hour

frequency at off peak times

OPTION THAMESLINK B: Enhance existing 4 trains per hour service between

Catford Loop and Thameslink route via Blackfriars to operate at 6 trains per hour

frequency throughout peak periods

OPTION CANTERBURY A: Additional stops in existing 2 trains per hour service

between Canterbury East and Victoria at Peckham Rye and Denmark Hill

Note: all options where trains longer than 4 cars call at Clapham High Street and

Wandsworth Road assume use of Selective Door Opening equipment at these

locations.

Documents

Crofton Park stakeholder meeting scoring criteria - London Rail