TRANSPORT FOR LONDON LANE RENTAL SCHEME - … · TRANSPORT FOR LONDON LANE RENTAL SCHEME for regulating works related activities in the street Cost Benefit Analysis Prepared by Transport

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

LANE RENTAL SCHEME for regulating works related activities in the street

Cost Benefit Analysis Prepared by Transport for London

CoBA v1.1.doc Friday, 05 August 2011

TfL Lane Rental – Cost Benefit Analysis

2 of 55

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 5

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6

Link to Previous Cost and Benefits established relating to Works on the TfL Road Network ................................................................................................................ 7

Costs .................................................................................................................... 8

Benefits ................................................................................................................ 9

Other impacts ....................................................................................................... 9

Overview of works undertaken on the TfL Road Network ...................................... 11

External cost of works undertaken on the TfL Road Network ................................ 12

Context ............................................................................................................... 12

Econometric modelling for the identification of sensitive locations ..................... 12

Principles ........................................................................................................ 12

Vehicle-hours spent on the network ................................................................ 13

Network sensitivity .......................................................................................... 13

Comments on the role of pinch points ............................................................ 15

Congestion management Areas ..................................................................... 15

Annual cost of externalities ............................................................................. 16

Traffic sensitive times ............................................................................................ 18

Time of day and day of the week ........................................................................ 18

Seasonality ......................................................................................................... 24

Congestion savings ............................................................................................ 25

Behaviour change .................................................................................................. 26

Baseline on CMA ................................................................................................ 26

Behaviour change modelling .............................................................................. 27

Baseline carriageway impact during traffic sensitive times ............................. 28

Exemptions ..................................................................................................... 28

Behaviour change ........................................................................................... 29

Cost to the industry ......................................................................................... 30

Road works carried out by TfL ........................................................................ 31


3 of 55

Utility Works .................................................................................................... 31

Summary Tables ............................................................................................. 32

TfL administration and enforcement costs ............................................................. 33

Inspections ......................................................................................................... 33

Reporting and controlling the occupation of the carriageway during traffic sensitive times .................................................................................................... 33

Administration of charges and penalties ............................................................. 33

Monetised Costs and Benefits Analysis ................................................................. 35

Base 2012 scenario – Annual Costs and Benefits .............................................. 35

Base 2015 Scenario – Annual Costs and Benefits ............................................. 36

Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................. 37

Costs and benefits by year ................................................................................. 40

Net present values ............................................................................................. 41

Non Monetised Costs and Benefits ........................................................................ 42

The induction phenomenon ................................................................................ 42

Agglomeration effects ......................................................................................... 45

Road structure .................................................................................................... 46

Road Safety ........................................................................................................ 46

Health and safety in the industry ........................................................................ 47

Air quality and climate change ............................................................................ 48

Noise .................................................................................................................. 49

Long term reduction in the number of works on the TLRN ................................. 49

Cycling and walking ............................................................................................ 50

Distributional Effects ........................................................................................... 50

Effects on businesses ........................................................................................ 51

Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................... 53

Challenges ......................................................................................................... 53

Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 53

Tools and Key Monitoring Indicators .................................................................. 53

Time Frames ...................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................. 55


4 of 55

Change History

Date Changes Made By

Summary of Changes Made

20/06/2011 Alexandre Santacreu

Update on CoBA analyses.


Update of model outputs to reflect changes in the charging regime (bandings, immediate works and exemptions.)


Updates related to feedback received from DfT (Matt Tyler) also changes resulting from DFT recommendations on changes to scheme design and feedback received from Alan Bristow (London‟s Traffic Director).

User Review

Date Reviewed By Comments

23/06/2011 Andy Emmonds Review completed for release to SRO. Comments left in document relating to further work required

06/07/2011 Helena Kakouratos

Clarified exemptions regime and the charges for “immediate” activities

13/07/2011 Andy Emmonds Review completed for release to senior management.

05/08/2011 Andy Emmonds Review of feedback changes and consistency checks.


5 of 55

Executive Summary

1. The external cost of works undertaken on the areas where lane rental

charges would apply (i.e. the CMA portion of the Transport for London road network) is estimated to be £233m per annum in terms of delays, diversions and journey time variability.

2. In order to calculate the benefits of a lane rental scheme, a behaviour

change model has been applied to a baseline volume of works, resulting in a reduction of external costs.

3. 80% of targeted works will adapt by clearing the carriageway during traffic

sensitive times as charges will otherwise apply.

4. The biggest cost of the scheme arises from the behaviour change needed to clear the carriageway or work faster to avoid traffic sensitive times. This is £8.7m per year. 65% will be borne by utility companies and 35% by TfL.

5. The cost of lane rental charges and penalties is called a “transfer” and does

not form part of the cost benefit analysis. This will be £9.8m per year. 62% will be borne by utility companies and 38% by TfL. Note this is a different cost to the above bullet point.

6. The 1st year Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is 8.4 (total scheme net benefit of

£97 million), based on reduced delays, diversions and journey time variability. The predicted 2015 BCR is 11.6 and the cumulated BCR until 2020 is 10.6 (total scheme net benefit of £800 million in present value.)

7. Gross benefit to businesses, in terms of avoided disruption, is expected to rise above £50m per year.

8. Sensitivity tests on a number of different scenarios have been conducted. The worst case scenario which assumes only a 40% drop in external costs when the carriageway is cleared during traffic sensitive times would bring the benefit cost ratio for the 1st year down to 5.0.

9. Distributional effects are deemed fair thanks to the support to the economy

and the improved level of service for general traffic as well as for bus passengers.

10. Outcomes are uncertain with regards to impacts on road safety, health and

safety in the industry, air quality, climate change, cycling and walking. A risk of degradation is discussed and quantified where possible.

11. An uptake of new technologies and a falling cost until 2015 are expected,

followed by a steady-state level of good practice in the industry.

12. We propose an evaluation report to be completed by January 2014 based on a full year of “normal” operations.


6 of 55

Introduction

Works in the street are necessary in order to provide and maintain essential services and transport networks on which we all depend. However, these works also cause significant disruption, imposing substantial costs on individuals and on the economy and these externalities are borne by society at large.

Permit schemes implemented under Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 are an established tool by which TfL manages and coordinates the works carried out on their streets. Under the London permit scheme, works promoters and TfL must obtain a permit from the relevant highway authority for any works they propose to carry out. Permits are issued with conditions attached, placing restrictions on specific aspects of how the works may be carried out.

While street works can cause disruption and inconvenience wherever they take place, the greatest costs are associated with works on a small proportion of the road network – typically the most heavily-trafficked streets and the specific pinch-points that constrain the overall capacity of the wider road network, in particular where there are junctions, bridges, road narrowings and other localised capacity constraints.

The Transport for London strategic road network (TLRN) comprises roughly 5% of London‟s total road length, carries one third of all London‟s traffic, but accounts for some £300m1 of the estimated £750m2 annual external cost of road works across London.

While the permit scheme enables TfL to manage better some of this disruption through better spatial allocation for the works and by the imposition of conditions on such elements as timing and duration of works this is insufficient to control disruption caused by works in the most traffic sensitive times, i.e. rush-hour vs. off-peak times due to the lack of incentives to undertake works outside of the most sensitive times. Further regulatory intervention is therefore necessary, but this should be specifically targeted on the most critical parts of the TLRN i.e. those pinch points and segments which would trigger large scale congestion in the event of a carriageway obstruction in traffic sensitive times.

A lane rental scheme is proposed whereby works promoters, whether utility companies or highway authorities are incentivised to conduct works at these locations outside of traffic sensitive times when no charge will apply, utilising new technology such as wider trench plates if necessary so as to minimise occupation of the carriageway at traffic sensitive times and thereby minimise traffic disruption.

The principles and proposals for the operation of the proposed London lane rental scheme can be found in “Lane Rental Scheme V0.1”. The key objectives of the London Lane Rental scheme are to:

1 Source: London Permit Scheme for controlling works related activities in the street - Cost Benefit

Analysis Version 10.0, 4 March 2011

2 Source: TfL internal calculations based on London Permit Scheme Cost Benefit Analysis


7 of 55

a) treat all activities covered by the scheme and activity promoters on an equal basis, b) minimise the duration of occupation of the street at the busiest locations on the network (subject to certain exemptions), c) minimise the number of works taking place during traffic sensitive times, d) support journey time reliability as required under the Mayor‟s Transport Strategy.

Link to Previous Cost and Benefits established relating to Works on the TfL Road Network

The work undertaken to establish the benefit to cost ratio related to the proposed introduction of the lane rental scheme builds on previous work undertaken to establish the overall societal benefits of the establishment of the London Permit Scheme (LoPS)3.

The LoPS cost benefit analysis considered the introduction of the Permit scheme on participating Borough roads and the TfL road network. It estimated as a result of the introduction of LoPS that a key benefit would be a 10% reduction in works related disruption. It should be borne in mind when assessing the Cost Benefit Analysis (CoBA) for lane rental that the lane rental scheme will only apply on the TFL road network on the portions of it that are deemed most sensitive in the event of a carriageway obstruction.

The tools and techniques used in calculating economic benefits have improved over time since the introduction of the London Permit Scheme and this document reflects the establishment of these.

The CoBA for the lane rental scheme uses a more refined technique called econometric modelling. This is resulting from the introduction of a network wide regression model that can relate causal factors like flows and disruption from various causes including works to overall traffic journey times undertaken on the road network. This tool enables better capture of the externalities related to works disruption including overall diversionary impact. The lane rental CoBA focuses on monetising these benefits and unlike the LoPS CoBA does not attempt to monetise the diversionary impacts as an independent component, in part because it is established that the benefits of the lane rental scheme will be widely distributed across London beyond the TfL road network and these are not separable.

3 London Permit Scheme for controlling works related activities in the street - Cost Benefit Analysis

Version 10.0, 4 March 2011. This is the latest version incorporating some of the phase 3 London Borough applicants.


8 of 55

It has been established that the baseline externalities associated with works on the TLRN quoted in the LoPs CoBA and Lane Rental CoBA are consistent. Where data or adjustment factors are used that were first established in the London Permit Scheme, these are identified in the text of this document.

The disruption impact of works and network sensitivity has been calculated on data from October 2008 until May 2010 i.e. prior to the establishment of the LoPs.

The benefits of the establishment of the permit scheme on the TLRN in terms of the reduction in works related disruption have not been fully established. This is in part related to not having a full set of required journey time validation data for the year 2010 and the start of 2011 at the time of publication of this document. This means that it has not been possible to isolate the LoPS benefits from the potential benefits of lane rental.

An assumption in the modelling of the Lane Rental Scheme is therefore that the 10% works related disruption4 benefit realised from the LoPS scheme will be additional to the estimated 70% of congestion that will be realised through the move of works outside of traffic sensitive times arising in response to the establishment of the lane rental scheme. Consequently, in the case of works typically occupying the carriageway on the TLRN in a lane rental area during traffic sensitive times, an 80% reduction in external costs is expected if the promoters have a permit and choose to clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times. This assumption remains valid in all future years.

The lane rental benefit cost base case is based on a works volume baseline established in 2010. We can make the assumption that the lane rental benefit cost base case incorporates some of the initial benefits of the establishment of the London Permit Scheme on the TLRN where these relate to reduction in the number of works calculated for 2010.

Costs

The costs included in the cost benefit assessment analysis as a result of the introduction of the proposed lane rental scheme include:

Start-up costs

Enforcement and prosecution costs

Scheme process and other management costs The start-up costs have been considered with regard to the following elements:

Recruitment;

Accommodation;

Training;

Information Technology and processes. Overall the start-up costs in relation to the complete scheme are low. Costs in respect of preparation for the lane rental scheme have been included and this has included testing of systems.

4 Disruption encompasses the impacts on link journey times, diversions and journey time variability


9 of 55

The largest element of the costs will relate to the change in new working practices. These will have a cost in the short term that may lead to an increase in utility bills, the scale of which is discussed later in this document.

Benefits

Reduction in congestion arising from the better management of street works in disruptive times and locations on London‟s main strategic road network London will deliver direct economic benefits for road users in the form of:

Reduction in delay and congestion.

Reduction in diversion impacts.

Improved journey time reliability for both private and public transport users.

Support to the wider economy through enabling cheaper and more reliable

freight deliveries and thereby indirectly supporting the wider job market.

These benefits are directly measurable and can be defined in monetary values. Where benefits are measurable these have been quantified following the principles outlined in WebTAG guidance provided by the Department for Transport.

Other impacts

Many benefits are significant but these cannot be readily monetised, either because there is uncertainty relating to how they will be impacted by the lane rental scheme, or techniques required to monetise these benefits are not available. These non monetised benefits considered in this document include impacts on:

Road structure

Health and safety in the industry

Pollution in terms of tailpipe emissions and generator emissions

Noise

Long term reduction in the number of works on the TLRN

Cycling and walking

Risks related to the assessment of non-monetised benefits are identified. The overall cost-benefit analyses for tangible benefits have been drawn together in a series of tables. A single year (2012), three year (2015) and a nine year appraisal (2020) have been considered in this cost-benefit assessment. Sensitivity testing has been conducted based on a number of scenarios. These include tests related to the following considerations:


10 of 55

the choice of baseline considered for the number of works

the share of works traditionally occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive times

the cost of new working practises

the frequency of inspections

the impact of negative publicity related to working in the carriageway without paying rent

the different external costs arising from different types of works

the share of negative externalities which is saved when a work clears the carriageway during traffic sensitive times

The remainder of this document discusses the data and methodology utilised and the evidence established to determine the benefits and costs for the establishment of this lane rental scheme.

The methodology for calculating the benefits involved first identifying a baseline volume of works. Analysis was then conducted to estimate the external cost of those works in the most traffic sensitive locations and times on the TfL road network. A behaviour change model was constructed and this was then used to estimate the resulting drop in externalities arising from the adopted change in working practises that would arise to move traffic off of the carriageway in traffic sensitive times.


11 of 55

Overview of works undertaken on the TfL Road Network

The amount of work taking place on the TfL Road Network (TLRN) can be monitored using a database called the TfL Local Register. It records the start and end dates of each work phase on the TLRN, along with other information such as the name of the promoter and the geographical coordinates. Designed as an operational rather than an analytical tool, the consistency of its information is not ideal for in-depth analysis across time. However, bearing in mind such limitations, the Local Register is a key asset in the cost-benefit analysis of the lane rental scheme.

Tables below indicate the amount of works which took place on the TLRN in 2010. More precisely, it accounts for all complete phases recorded in the TfL local register, with a starting date in 2010, and with spatial coordinates matching the TfL Road Network.

works

promoter

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)TfL 30,032 65,436 2.2

Utility 14,148 63,888 4.5 Total 44,180 129,324 2.9

works

category

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)Immediate - Emergency 12,917 24,204 1.9

Immediate - Urgent 5,933 17,194 2.9 Minor 22,237 45,222 2.0

Standard 2,148 16,891 7.9 Major 945 25,813 27.3

Total 44,180 129,324 2.9

individual

work's duration

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)less than 48 hrs 32,770 43,452 1.3

between 48 hrs and a week 8,924 37,421 4.2 more than a week 2,486 48,451 19.5

Total 44,180 129,324 2.9

It should be noted that the individual duration of each work phases is estimated on the basis of a start date and an end date5. Any work ending on the same day as it started will have a duration set to 1 day. For this reason, an overnight work phase would count as 2 days, the same as a full time two-day work phase. This is a limitation of this dataset we are fully aware of.

5 duration = 1 + end date – start date


12 of 55

External cost of works undertaken on the TfL Road Network

Context

In the cost benefit analysis of the London permit scheme, TfL presented the results of an early analysis of the external costs of works. By looking at a sample of works and measuring their local impact on journey times, it was estimated that TLRN works had an external cost of £300m p.a. mainly reflecting their impact on delays, diversions and variability of journey times.

Since the summer of 2010, TfL‟s internal research has focussed on new techniques to better understand these costs.

Econometric modelling for the identification of sensitive locations

The objective is to identify the most sensitive parts of the network and to compare the impact of different works categories.

Principles

Transport for London has a detailed record of activities taking place on the TfL road network, undertaken by their own highway maintenance team or by utility companies. This data is stored in the Local Register and describes the location and duration of activities.

TfL also continuously records vehicular journey times on hundreds of links covered by Automatic Number-Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Data is processed and stored in a system called LCAP.

With such data available, it is possible to look at the correlation between the amount of activity taking place and the congestion level.

Back in 2009, while undertaking analyses to establish the London Permit Scheme TfL previously looked at the disruption impact of works using ANPR data from the LCAP system. The approach at this time could be called “a simple regression model” whereby a sample of average journey times on road network links with works was compared with a sample on links without works.

TfL in 2011 has been undertaking a different piece of analysis, which could be called “top-down” or “econometric modelling”. In other words, it is a multivariate regression modelling of congestion based on a long time series of data. The regression is based on data from October 2008 until May 2010 (mostly prior to the implementation of the permit scheme) and it is this data set that was used to determine the disruption impact of works on the TLRN.


13 of 55

Vehicle-hours spent on the network

The variable which is being explained by the model is the daily amount of vehicles-hours spent on the main London roads: the TfL Road Network (TLRN) and the Borough Principal Road Network (BPRN) together carrying 60% of the traffic of motor vehicles within Greater London. For every day since the LCAP system has been in operation, TfL calculated this figure by multiplying the journey time on a link with the typical flow observed on the same link at the same time of day, and then summed up the results across 24 hours and across all links. Since the links do not cover the whole network, an uplift strategy is applied with weights which accounts for unequal sample rates across space and across network category.

Some 270 links are sampling network conditions on the TLRN and BPRN. Accounting for the fact that some parts of London have a higher sample rate than others, area-specific weights are used to generate the estimated vehicle-hours from the amount captured on the sample.

Network sensitivity

The corridor evaluation framework is a tool developed by TfL to assess the level of performance achieved on individual sections of the TLRN. Data is collected on congestion, air quality, road safety, quality of walking and cycling routes, etc. All data is collected at the scale of 530 individual sections called „segments‟ stretching over 1 kilometre on average. For the analysis of the impact of works on the


14 of 55

network, segments width has been defined as the average width of the carriageway along each segment.

The pinch points make up another analytical framework used by TfL to identify the most saturated junctions in London and to monitor congestion. Taking advantage of GPS floating vehicle data, the congestion recorded within 150 metres of a given pinch point has been summed up. The result can be expressed as vehicle-hours worth of delay per kilometre per direction and per hour.

Segment width and pinch point saturation are key elements in the understanding of sensitivity with regards to road works. Using their geographical coordinates, all works taking place on the TfL road network have been attached to one of the 530 segments making up the corridor evaluation framework and, where applicable, to one of the 459 most congested TLRN pinch points.

In the econometric regression model, an explanatory variable could have been created for each segment‟s level of works volume, and for each pinch point‟s works volume. However, this would have created hundreds of explanatory variables while a very limited number of daily observations is available. This would not make any statistical sense. Instead, it was decided to fit segment specific and pinch point specific sensitivity factors, taking advantage of metadata already available: congestion level, traffic, width of carriageway, etc.

After a thorough investigation, the modelling framework was optimised by using a segment sensitivity factor which multiplies the impact of works taking place on this segment. This sensitivity is based on an adjusted ratio of flow over width. This has proved to describe sensitivity better than other indicators such as the flow only, the density of junctions, the congestion level, etc.

The modelling framework was further optimised by using a pinch point sensitivity factor which multiplies the impact of works taking place on this pinch point. This sensitivity is based on the congestion level expressed in vehicle-minutes of delay per hour, per kilometre and per direction.

Local mode share has been accounted for, to the extent that it influences the average value of time per motor vehicle6. With a high share of buses and hence a high vehicle occupancy, certain segments and pinch points have a value of time of up to £25 per vehicle per hour, compared to an average of £17. Their sensitivity ranking is uplifted accordingly.

SEGMENT SENSITIVITY SCALE = VOTS * { FLOW / (WIDTH – WIDTH0)}

pinch point sensitivity scale = VoTPP * MAX (0, CR – CR0)

6 Reference to the TfL VoT workbook and to DfT guidelines (TAG Unit 3.5.6: Values of Time and

Operating Costs April 2011).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.5.6.php


15 of 55

where,

VoTS is the average value of time per motor vehicle on the segment

VoTPP is the average value of time per motor vehicle on the segments in contact with the pinch point being considered

flow is the total number of motor vehicles recorded between 7am and 7pm across all directions during the latest DfT manual count on the segment

width is the width of carriageway, summed across directions where applicable

width0 is set to 5 metres

CR is the congestion rate in vehicle-minutes of delay per hour, km and direction, captured within 150m of the junction, on weekdays between 7am-7pm

CR0 is set to 1500 vehicle-minutes of delay per hour, km and direction

Comments on the role of pinch points

It is worth commenting on the meaning of these sensitivity indicators. If we consider a segment which is congested every day, it is often the case because the segment is the location where some form of queuing takes place, upstream from a congested junction. In this situation, the flow on the segment is restricted by the most critical junction. The closure of a lane on the segment, in this case, would not change its throughput. The risk is rather that the tailback looks longer because the same amount of vehicles is queuing on a smaller number of lanes. In this case, our framework would consider that the segment is not critical, but the junction is. The goal of lane rental will be to prevent works from impacting the throughput at the junction. To do so, lane rental would apply within about 100m of the junction, what we believe is a critical zone for the release of vehicles during one green stage.

Congestion management Areas

Taking advantage of this network sensitivity scale, in addition to the engineers‟ knowledge of the network, TfL has identified the pinch points and the segments‟ clusters where lane rental should apply and where congestion-relief action should be prioritised: the Congestion Management Areas (CMAs).

Sensitivity to a lane closure on CMA segments is 50% higher than on the rest of the network.

The network sensitivity indicators show a wide range of sensitivity levels across the CMAs. Knowing that, and in order to apply charges which are proportionate to the extent of the congestion that works would generate, it became desirable to introduce a banding of the lane rental charges. Thanks to the banding, works


16 of 55

would always be charged an amount smaller or equal to the cost of the congestion they are expected to induce.

Band 1 would cover a majority of the CMAs, where lane rental base charge would be set to £800 per day for all planned works.

Bands 2 and 3 would cover the rest of CMA segments and all of CMA pinch points, where lane rental base charge would be set to £2,500 per day.

The CMAs cover 57% of the TfL Road Network. Approximately 40% of the TLRN would be captured in band 1, 12% in band 2 and 5% in band 3.

Annual cost of externalities

TfL‟s latest “top-down” econometric modelling has been particularly successful in describing the impact of major utility excavations and emergency utility excavations. Because of data issues, it has been very difficult to identify the impact of minor works and of TfL‟s own works. However, by only looking at the utility major/emergency excavations, the estimated cost of delays on the network rises up to £200m. This includes the delays due to lowers speeds on the links and also the delays caused by the diversion on longer paths.

Accounting for the whole range of promoters and works categories, the estimate of the cost of delays and diversions caused by works on the TLRN is £270m per annum prior to the permit scheme. This ties-up with the previous estimate based on the simple regression statistical approach adopted for LoPs. In addition,


17 of 55

accounting for journey time variability, the external cost of TLRN works is estimated to be £300m p.a. prior to the permit scheme.

Works taking place on the Congestion Management Areas have an external cost of £210m p.a. for delays and diversions. Accounting for the variability of journey times, the total external cost of CMA works is estimated to be £233m per year.

If one considers only the works on the CMAs, occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive times and not eligible for exemptions, the associated cost of externalities (delays, diversions and journey time variability) is estimated to be £150m at the very least. This subset of CMA works is the one targeted by charges and which is expected to implement new working practices. If there was no behaviour change, these works would have to pay £72m per year in lane rental charges. Hence we can say that on average, the charges reflect half the cost of the congestion generated by the works.

As already mentioned, these costs refer to a situation prior to the London Permit Scheme. Since promoters have to seek a permit, TfL has a greater power to control the coordination of works, their spatial footprint and the kind of traffic management associated. It has been previously estimated that permitting is reducing the external costs by 10%. The latest evaluation analysis has confirmed that this estimate still holds.

Lane rental would apply in addition to the permit scheme and would further reduce the delays and diversions caused by works on the CMAs.


18 of 55

Traffic sensitive times

This section consists in the analysis of traffic flow variations across the day, the week and the year, in order to support the definition of traffic sensitive times for CMA segments. The number of automatic traffic counters in London doesn‟t allow for a statistically meaningful segment-specific or borough-specific analysis. All results refer to London as a whole.

Time of day and day of the week

Vehicle flow data has been analysed in order to determine the times of day which are should be qualified as traffic sensitive times. The analysis is based on two years of data (2009 and 2010) from 36 Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) on the Transport for London Road Network. Data was separated into weekdays (Monday to Friday excluding Bank Holidays), Saturdays and Sundays due to the varying profiles of each category. The flow index represents the hourly flow divided by the median of hourly flows across the two years of observations.

Figure 1 shows average vehicle flows for each hour of the day on weekdays. The graph clearly shows the AM and PM peaks, and shows that, on average, traffic levels are very similar at 07.00 and 20.00. This is highlighted by the blue dashed line. The morning and evening peaks are also shown with orange dashed lines. It can be seen that the morning peak runs from 07.00 to 10.00, whilst the evening peak runs from 15.30 to 19.00.

Figure 1: TLRN flow index profile on Weekdays

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Mid

nig

ht

to 1

am

1am

to

2am

2am

to

3am

3am

to

4am

4am

to

5am

5am

to

6am

6am

to

7am

7am

to

8am

8am

to

9am

9am

to

10

am

10

am t

o 1

1am

11

am t

o 1

2p

m

12

pm

to 1

pm

1p

m to

2p

m

2p

m to

3p

m

3p

m to

4p

m

4p

m to

5p

m

5p

m to

6p

m

6p

m to

7p

m

7p

m to

8p

m

8p

m to

9p

m

9p

m to

10

pm

10

pm

to 1

1p

m

11

pm

to M

idn

igh

t


19 of 55

The evidence shown above suggests that the following traffic sensitive time designations should be applied on weekdays:

On CMA Band 1 traffic sensitive times would be from 07.00 to 10.00 and 15.30 to 19.00.

On CMA Band 2 traffic sensitive times would be from 07.00 to 20.00.

There may also be localised instances when more flexibility would be appropriate. This is the reason why traffic sensitivity designations would apply at 6.30 in the morning on some segments, and/or finish at 20.00.

Figure 2 shows average vehicle flows for each hour of the day on Saturdays. The graph shows that on average traffic levels are very similar at 10.00 and 19.30. This is highlighted by the blue dashed line. Vehicle flows start to rise later in the day on Saturdays than they do during the week with a peak in flows from midday to 18.00.

Figure 2: TLRN Flow Profile on Saturdays

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Mid

nig

ht

to 1

am

1am

to

2am

2am

to

3am

3am

to

4am

4am

to

5am

5am

to

6am

6am

to

7am

7am

to

8am

8am

to

9am

9am

to

10

am

10

am t

o 1

1am

11

am t

o 1

2p

m

12

pm

to 1

pm

1p

m to

2p

m

2p

m to

3p

m

3p

m to

4p

m

4p

m to

5p

m

5p

m to

6p

m

6p

m to

7p

m

7p

m to

8p

m

8p

m to

9p

m

9p

m to

10

pm

10

pm

to 1

1p

m

11

pm

to m

idn

igh

t

The evidence shown above suggests that the following timing periods should be applied on Saturdays:

On CMA Band 1, traffic sensitivity designation should apply from 12.00 to 18.00

On CMA Band 2, in order to compensate for the unavailability of the weekday inter-peak to carry out works, it is proposed to apply traffic sensitive designations from 12.00 to 18.00 as well.


20 of 55

Figure 3 shows average vehicle flows for each hour of the day on Sundays. The graph shows that on average traffic levels are very similar at 11.00 and 19.00. This is highlighted by the blue dashed line. There is a peak in vehicle flows from midday to 16.00.

Figure 3: TLRN Flow Profile on Sundays

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Mid

nig

ht

to 1

am

1am

to

2am

2am

to

3am

3am

to

4am

4am

to

5am

5am

to

6am

6am

to

7am

7am

to

8am

8am

to

9am

9am

to

10

am

10

am t

o 1

1am

11

am t

o 1

2p

m

12

pm

to 1

pm

1p

m to

2p

m

2p

m to

3p

m

3p

m to

4p

m

4p

m to

5p

m

5p

m to

6p

m

6p

m to

7p

m

7p

m to

8p

m

8p

m to

9p

m

9p

m to

10

pm

10

pm

to 1

1p

m

11

pm

to m

idn

igh

t

On Sundays, in order to simplify the scheme, it is proposed to repeat the traffic sensitivity designations used on Saturdays. Only a few segments would be deemed non-sensitive on Sundays and hence would not be subject to lane rental charges on that day.


21 of 55

Table 1 highlights the periods of the day when traffic levels are at their highest. The morning and evening peaks are emphasised Monday to Friday. The later starting times for higher vehicle flows can also be seen on Saturday and Sunday.

Table 1: TLRN Flow Index by Day of Week and Time of Day

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

5am to 6am 39% 40% 39% 40% 40% 31% 27%

6am to 7am 95% 96% 95% 95% 92% 46% 35%

7am to 8am 137% 137% 136% 137% 133% 68% 44%

8am to 9am 138% 138% 138% 138% 136% 89% 55%

9am to 10am 123% 124% 124% 125% 123% 109% 83%

10am to 11am 115% 116% 117% 119% 120% 122% 107%

11am to 12pm 117% 118% 119% 121% 124% 132% 125%

12pm to 1pm 122% 124% 125% 126% 131% 139% 137%

1pm to 2pm 124% 126% 128% 129% 134% 141% 140%

2pm to 3pm 128% 129% 131% 132% 138% 137% 136%

3pm to 4pm 136% 137% 138% 139% 145% 134% 131%

4pm to 5pm 147% 148% 148% 150% 151% 133% 129%

5pm to 6pm 154% 155% 155% 156% 155% 136% 128%

6pm to 7pm 144% 148% 147% 149% 148% 131% 123%

7pm to 8pm 119% 125% 127% 129% 134% 119% 112%

8pm to 9pm 89% 93% 95% 101% 108% 97% 96%

9pm to 10pm 74% 78% 80% 84% 86% 81% 83%

average 118% 120% 120% 122% 123% 109% 99%

Directional vehicle flow was also analysed. Data from weekdays in September 2006 from 39 ATCs on major radial roads in London was used. The results of this analysis can be seen below.


22 of 55

Figure 4 shows the average hourly vehicle flow for inbound and outbound radial routes in London. The graph highlights the differences in the AM and PM peaks, with higher vehicle flows inbound in the morning and outbound in the evening.

Figure 4: Weekday flow index profile for main radial routes by direction

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Mid

nig

ht

to 1

am

1am

to

2am

2am

to

3am

3am

to

4am

4am

to

5am

5am

to

6am

6am

to

7am

7am

to

8am

8am

to

9am

9am

to

10

am

10

am t

o 1

1am

11

am t

o 1

2p

m

12

pm

to 1

pm

1p

m to

2p

m

2p

m to

3p

m

3p

m to

4p

m

4p

m to

5p

m

5p

m to

6p

m

6p

m to

7p

m

7p

m to

8p

m

8p

m to

9p

m

9p

m to

10

pm

10

pm

to 1

1p

m

11

pm

to M

idn

igh

t

Inbound Radial

Outbound Radial


23 of 55

Table 2 also highlights the morning and evening peaks on radial routes. It is notable that there is little traffic on outbound radial routes in the AM peak.

Table 2: Weekday Flow Index for Main Radial Routes by Direction

Inbound Radial

Outbound Radial

5am to 6am 41% 38%

6am to 7am 92% 81%

7am to 8am 143% 123%

8am to 9am 149% 133%

9am to 10am 130% 122%

10am to 11am 119% 117%

11am to 12pm 119% 121%

12pm to 1pm 123% 125%

1pm to 2pm 124% 126%

2pm to 3pm 125% 129%

3pm to 4pm 130% 137%

4pm to 5pm 133% 142%

5pm to 6pm 139% 149%

6pm to 7pm 140% 150%

7pm to 8pm 128% 136%

8pm to 9pm 106% 110%

9pm to 10pm 91% 93%

The evidence shown above suggests that there may be some instance which allow for more flexibility for outbound radial routes in the morning. For example, if works are taking place on an outbound section of road with two lanes works may be able to take place free of a Lane Rental charge even if the works are located in within a Congestion Management Area (CMA).

It is often difficult to assess the exact position of works on a single carriageway road. In order to simplify the administration of the scheme, the possibility to occupy the carriageway on outbound radial routes free of charge in the morning will be limited to dual carriageway roads. This could also be justified by the fact that works undertaken on single carriageway roads are likely to generate friction in both directions.

The analysis of traffic levels, taken from the DfT manual count database, has been carried out in order to identify the dual carriageway segments showing a tidal characteristic. A synthetic score has been given to each of the 530 TLRN segments, reflecting their share of dual carriageway and the magnitude of their tidal characteristics. On the basis of this scoring system, 39 CMA segments in the lower charge band (band 1) have been identified as tidal dual carriageway segments. The exemption discussed above will apply on these segments, together making up 52 kilometres.


24 of 55

Seasonality

Vehicle flow data has been analysed in order to determine whether there are any periods during the year when charges could be avoidable.

Data from 36 Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) on the Transport for London Road Network was used. The locations of the ATCs can be seen in Appendix 1. The range of data collection fully covers 2009 and 2010.

Two years worth of 24 hours data were used as a reference to establish an index, while this document reports on data limited to 7am-7pm. This is the reason why most figures stand above the 100% reference level.

Daily flow indexes are grouped into weekdays and weekends. Bank holidays were excluded from the data, along with days with poor data quality due to data collection system failures. For each group (i.e. weekdays or weekend) and each month, the three quartiles have been calculated.

Figure 5: Seasonal Flow Profile on TLRN on Weekdays and Weekends

Figure 5: Seasonal Flow Profile on TLRN on Weekdays and Weekends shows the median vehicle flows as well as the 25th and 75th percentiles for both weekdays (highest boxes) and weekends (lowest values). Each box is drawn between the 25th and the 75th percentile of the group.

The chart shows during the summer months (June, July, August and September) that weekdays have a lower median vehicle flow than during the rest of the year, with August being particularly low.


25 of 55

The chart also shows quite low averages for January and December; this can be attributed to lower numbers of vehicles recorded between Christmas and New Year along with several days of high snowfall in both 2009 and 2010. This is reflected in the low 25th percentile shown for December.

Figure 5: Seasonal Flow Profile on TLRN on Weekdays and Weekends also shows flow data for weekends which are much lower than weekday flows. The chart illustrates that monthly flow figures have a greater range on weekends than they do on weekdays. Like weekdays average weekend flows are lowest in August, followed very closely by January and December. August and December have the lowest flows in the 75th percentile.

Weekdays Weekends

Month 25th

percentile Median

75th percentile

25th

percentile Median

75th percentile

January 129% 135% 138% 104% 112% 121%

February 135% 137% 140%

114% 117% 126%

March 135% 138% 140% 116% 123% 127%

April 133% 137% 141%

111% 115% 123%

May 137% 139% 141% 113% 120% 125%

June 130% 133% 136%

111% 117% 121%

July 130% 133% 137% 110% 115% 120%

August 125% 128% 133%

107% 111% 118%

September 129% 133% 138% 114% 120% 126%

October 134% 135% 137%

114% 122% 124%

November 134% 137% 138% 112% 117% 126%

December 123% 134% 137% 99% 113% 118%

The evidence shown above suggests that Lane Rental charges could be reduced or made avoidable during August, when median weekday flows are 8% lower and median weekend flows are 6% lower than throughout the rest of the year. August figures are also lower in the 25th and 75th percentiles than any other month with the exception of December. This is due to the unusually high levels of snowfall experienced in 2009 and 2010 and therefore December should be not be considered as a month to relax Lane Rental charges.

Congestion savings

It is assumed that works previously occupying the carriageway over traffic sensitive times could have their external costs (i.e. delays, diversions, journey time variability and casualties) cut by 70% if they adopted new working practices (night/weekend, plating, no-dig, etc.)

This is a 70% cut from the baseline cost prior to introduction of the London Permit Scheme in January 2010. This can be added to the 10% cut achieved with the permit scheme. Consequently, in the case of CMA works typically occupying the


26 of 55

carriageway during traffic sensitive times, an 80% reduction in external costs is expected if the promoters have a permit and choose to clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times.

This assumption remains valid in all future years.

In the Congestion Management Areas, where lane rental would apply, marginal changes in work duration can be expected. This is due to the increased difficulty associated with carrying out works outside of traffic sensitive times. Wherever there is an increase in the number of days required to carry out the works, this will be accounted for and consequently reduce the benefit which can be associated to the lane rental scheme.

Behaviour change

Baseline on CMA

The local register is recording all works taking place on the TfL Road Network. We completed the analysis of two years worth of data, covering 2009 and 2010.

Tables below indicate the amount of works which took place on the CMAs in 2010. More precisely, it accounts for all complete phases recorded in the TfL local register, with a starting date in 2010, and with spatial coordinates matching the TfL Road Network.

works

promoter

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)TfL 19,912 41,853 2.1

Utility 9,359 42,056 4.5 Total 29,271 83,909 2.9

works

category

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)Immediate - Emergency 9,378 16,785 1.8

Immediate - Urgent 3,909 11,156 2.9 Minor 13,950 29,041 2.1

Standard 1,396 10,925 7.8 Major 638 16,002 25.1

Total 29,271 83,909 2.9


27 of 55

individual

work's duration

number of

work-phases

cumulated

duration (days)

average

duration (days)less than 48 hrs 21,858 29,181 1.3

between 48 hrs and a week 5,819 24,363 4.2 more than a week 1,594 30,365 19.0

Total 29,271 83,909 2.9

It should be noted that the individual duration of each of the work phases is estimated on the basis of a start date and an end date7. Any work ending on the same day as it started will have a duration set to 1 day. For this reason, an overnight work phase would count as 2 days, the same as a full time two-day work phase. This is a limitation of this dataset we are fully aware of.

In the economic modelling framework, it has been assumed that the volume of works recorded in 2010 provides a baseline demand volume for subsequent years. One could argue that a lane rental scheme would reduce this level of demand. It could deter utilities from developing their networks underneath the CMAs. It could also reduce the number of TfL works by making new schemes appear more expensive. It has been decided however not to model these changes in the baseline demand. This is a conservative approach to the extent that any drop in the number of works would deliver benefits by reducing delays, diversions and journey time variability.

This baseline already accounts for the impact of permitting, which started on the TLRN and in 16 London Boroughs in January 2010 and in a further 2 London Boroughs in April 2010. It is assumed that the same baseline represents the volume of works which would take place, every year from 2012 on, if lane rental was not implemented i.e. with permitting alone.

The Olympic and Paralympic Games will have an impact on the first full year of operations of the scheme. Works will be banned over several weeks. By being redistributed to other times of the year, the assumption is that the baseline volume of work will still take place.

Behaviour change modelling

This section begins with the estimation of works in scope for charging. Such works are defined as those having an impact on the carriageway on CMAs during traffic sensitive times and not eligible for exemptions. Next is the presentation of a discrete choice model for predicting the reaction of works promoters, either paying the charges or developing new working practices. Finally, the cost of new working practices is estimated.

7 duration = 1 + end date - start date


28 of 55

Baseline carriageway impact during traffic sensitive times

The notion of carriageway impact during traffic sensitive times forms the criteria for charging. Hence, footway works will be subject to charges if they require the loading of materials from a vehicle during traffic sensitive times.

The data from the local register does not give that level of detail and numerous assumptions have had to be made. It has been estimated overall that about half of the works (but two-thirds of the cumulated duration) have an impact on the carriageway at traffic sensitive times.

However, this assumption is not applied homogeneously across all works categories. Assumptions are that:

All other factors being equal, works in band 1 are half as likely to obstruct the TS CW8 as works in bands 2 or 3 because the traffic sensitive times do not cover the inter-peak.

All other factors being equal, works lasting less than 48hrs are half as likely to obstruct the TS CW as works lasting between 48hrs and one week because some of them already take place over the weekend or at night.

All other factors being equal, works without reinstatement are 25% less likely to obstruct the TS CW than works with reinstatement details.

All other factors being equal, works without carriageway reinstatement are 50% less likely to obstruct the TS CW than works with carriageway reinstatement.

Exemptions

It should be noted that 11km of the CMAs lie on the A13 DBFO, where lane rental charges would not apply for administrative reasons at the time the scheme will go live. In our accounting framework and behaviour models, this could be seen as an exemption, the scale of which can be estimated by looking at the history of works on the A13. Data collected by TfL in the Local Register shows that only 1% of CMA works do take place on the DBFO sections.

In addition, the lane rental scheme document outlines a list of exemption criteria. In particular, some works could be exempt although they are causing an obstruction on the carriageway at traffic sensitive times.

Overall, we anticipate that 4% of the works phases (amongst those obstructing the carriageway at traffic sensitive times) will benefit from exemptions.

8 TS CW stands for “carriageway at traffic sensitive times”, with traffic sensitive times defined as the

lane rental charging times.


29 of 55

Behaviour change

Three behaviours have been identified which promoters may want to adopt when facing the risk of lane rental charges.

1. avoiding a rental charge by clearing the CW at TS times (but works may last longer)

2. paying the rental charge and probably working faster

3. infringing their permit, working faster and risking a daily penalty

A „logit‟ discrete choice model is used to estimate the share of promoters choosing each strategy. This technique is a prominent model used by transport planners for instance to predict the choice of a mode of transport (bus/train/walking...) by individuals under new conditions. Unfortunately in this situation, the model cannot be calibrated and will be simply based on a set of assumptions on the internal costs in the industry.

The behaviour model anticipates the following pattern for the first year of the scheme:

Where low charges apply (i.e. on band 1) 12% of promoters will try and dodge the rent by providing incorrect information on their permit or not applying for a permit at all, while 26% would pay it. In these situations however, some congestion relief is expected since promoters would work faster. The remaining 62% will clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times by changing their working practices.

Where higher charges apply (i.e. on bands 2 and 3) 95% of promoters will clear the carriageway and 4% will choose to pay a rental charge.

Core assumptions are as follows, and apply to the baseline volume of works usually obstructing the carriageway at traffic sensitive times:

1. Changing behaviour and clearing the carriageway during traffic sensitive times costs £500 on average per day to the works promoter in the case of works usually involving a carriageway reinstatement, but £200 per day in other cases. Our internal research suggests that plating would actually cost much less than £500 per day. Therefore, the risk of underestimating the cost of behaviour change to the industry is minimal.

2. The uncertainty on the industry‟s internal costs is of the order of £600 per day. This parameter allows the modelling of a better spread of choices.

3. Enforcement frequency is set above one inspection per day (using CCTV or on-field officers) with an £80 penalty (in addition to the rental charge which would also apply) for each day when unlawful occupation of the carriageway at traffic sensitive times is reported. In addition to the £80 penalty, the model assumes that promoters would suffer a negative publicity


30 of 55

from penalties. This negative publicity is accounted for, in the behaviour choice model, as a virtual cost of £1000 per penalty.

4. The duration of works is expected to be influenced, being cut by 5% when a £800 rent is paid or by 23% when a £2500 rent is paid. Duration should also be reduced according to the statistical cost of offending. For works choosing to clear the carriageway, a 20% increase in duration is expected on bands 2 and 3 due to smaller amount of non-sensitive times. Another 20% increase in duration is also expected if works would normally involve a carriageway excavation. These factors multiply each other when applicable.

In the longer term, say from 2015 onwards, technological and contractual changes will have sunk in. At this horizon and after, it is assumed that clearing the carriageway during traffic sensitive times will cost 30% less than initially.

The behaviour model predicts the following pattern for 2015 onwards:

where low charges apply (i.e. on band 1) 11% of promoters will try and dodge the rental charge while 24% would pay it. In these situations however, some congestion relief is expected since promoters would work faster. The remaining 65% will clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times by changing their working practices.

where higher charges apply (i.e. on bands 2 and 3) 96% of promoters will clear the carriageway and 3% will choose to pay rental charges.

Cost to the industry

Although lane rental charges would not apply 24 hours a day, there is no doubt the lane rental scheme will increase the cost of carrying out works on the TLRN, at least over a transition period towards alternative practices.

Charges and penalties will not take part of the cost-benefit analysis because they are a transfer. They would be a cost to works promoters and a benefit for TfL and be cancelled out when calculating the net social benefit.

The rest of the cost to the industry would be the cost of new working practices. With assumption (1) set out above, one can estimate this cost will be close to £12m p.a. over the first year of the scheme.

The economic rule of the half would predict a much higher cost to the industry at circa £36m i.e. half of the virtual rent which works promoters would pay if they didn‟t change their working practices. The rule of the half does not apply here because there is a very heterogeneous range of activities (some involving carriageway excavations and others not) with different elasticities with regards to charges. The disaggregate model being used is believed to provide the best estimate of the cost to the industry given that it is reflecting the heterogeneous range of activities and charging bands.


31 of 55

In the longer term, from 2015 onwards, the cost of new working practices would be lower and stabilise below £9m p.a.

Road works carried out by TfL

Between April 2008 and March 2011, the average expenditure on Highway Maintenance & Works Contract (HMWC) was £112m per year. According to Local Register data, HMWC works make up 65% of TfL‟s work phases. The rest is carried out by Roads and Traffic. The total expenditure in relation to TfL road works is estimated to £170m per year.

The financial impact of lane rental would be an additional cost of £8.1m over the first year of implementation. 49% of it would consist of rental charges, the rest being spent on new working practices.

In the longer term, the additional cost is estimated to £6.7m per annum, 55% of which being related to rental charges. In effect, this is a 4% increase in the costs of maintaining and improving the network.

Utility Works

The total cost to utilities to maintain and develop utility networks under the capital‟s roads is unknown to TfL and cannot be compared with the cost of lane rental.

The financial impact of lane rental on utilities would be an additional cost of £14.1m per year in the short term, falling to £11.6m per annum in the longer term.

There is a high level of uncertainty on these costs.


32 of 55

Summary Tables

2012 Horizon

rents

and penalties new

working practices total cost

HA £ 4,000,000 £ 4,100,000 £ 8,100,000

Roads HMWC

£ 2,510,000

£ 2,560,000

£ 5,070,000

Roads

£ 1,060,000

£ 1,180,000

£ 2,240,000

Traffic

£ 430,000

£ 360,000

£ 790,000

Utility £ 6,700,000 £ 7,400,000 £ 14,100,000

Water

£ 1,870,000

£ 2,050,000

£ 3,920,000

Gas

£ 1,700,000

£ 2,210,000

£ 3,910,000

Electric

£ 1,630,000

£ 1,570,000

£ 3,200,000

Telecoms

£ 1,490,000

£ 1,600,000

£ 3,090,000

All Groups £ 10,700,000 £ 11,500,000 £ 22,200,000

2015 Horizon

rents

and penalties new

working practices total cost

HA £ 3,700,000 £ 3,000,000 £ 6,700,000

Roads HMWC

£ 2,330,000

£ 1,870,000

£ 4,200,000

Roads

£ 980,000

£ 860,000

£ 1,840,000

Traffic

£ 400,000

£ 270,000

£ 670,000

Utility £ 6,000,000 £ 5,600,000 £ 11,600,000

Water

£ 1,640,000

£ 1,560,000

£ 3,200,000

Gas

£ 1,470,000

£ 1,660,000

£ 3,130,000

Electric

£ 1,490,000

£ 1,170,000

£ 2,660,000

Telecoms

£ 1,350,000

£ 1,180,000

£ 2,530,000

All Groups £ 9,700,000 £ 8,600,000 £ 18,300,000

Note promoters are presented by group. A very small share of works could not be attached to groups and are not represented in the tables below, which explains why the totals here may appear lower than the totals presented in other parts of the report.


33 of 55

TfL administration and enforcement costs

Inspections

It is estimated that CCTV cameras would provide a view of 50% of the volume of works taking place on the Congestion Management Areas. Existing CCTV enforcement teams within TfL will be reporting the occupation of the carriageway during traffic sensitive times.

Enforcement officers will also patrol the streets, looking for works which just started and visiting the works which they know take place on the network.

The patrolling of CMAs and the inspection of works on these areas will cost £950,000 per year in the short term.

This cost would drop by 30% in the long term because of an increased productivity

Reporting and controlling the occupation of the carriageway during traffic sensitive times

Enforcement officers, either with CCTV or hand-held devices, will report evidence of any work seen occupying the carriageway on the CMAs during traffic sensitive times. This would be carried out on a daily basis in order to provide daily evidence of occupation when offenders are caught.

TfL will compare the reports with the works permits and identify which works are causing an offence, which are paying rental charges and which are benefiting from exemptions. On an average day, we expect to see circa 60 cases, most of which would be related to offences.

The analysis of evidence will cost £400,000 per year. The cost may be higher during the first year while efficient work practices are developed.

This cost would drop by 34% in the long term because of behaviour change in the industry (namely more promoters choosing to clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times, which explains 4 points out of 34) and because of an increased back-office productivity, which explains 30 points out of 34.

Administration of charges and penalties

TfL already has a team of works coordination officers looking at works notices and allocating permits. However, some additional resources will be necessary to ensure that the appropriate lane rental charges are applied and are correctly billed.

Offenders will be contacted as soon as possible in order to sort out their situation. TfL also expect to bring offenders to court in situations of deliberate dodging of lane rental charges.


34 of 55

All these front-office costs are estimated to be £125,000 per year.

This cost would drop by 32% in the long term because of behaviour change in the industry (namely less promoters choosing to risk penalties, which explains 2 points out of 32) and because of improved technical solutions to processing lane rental charges, which explains the 30 other percentage points.


35 of 55

Monetised Costs and Benefits Analysis

Base 2012 scenario – Annual Costs and Benefits

Behaviour Change Summary Works % Duration % Rent Penalties

Cost of new

working

practices

baseline volume of works 44,260 0% 129,770 0%

of which in scope for lane rental (CMA) 29,320 66% 84,240 65% (a)

of which impact the carriageway (CW) at traffic

sensitive (TS) times 13,780 47% 54,970 65% (b)

of which not exempt 13,230 96% 52,770 96% (c) 71,810,000£ (e)

of which will avoid a rent by clearing the CW

at TS times (but may last longer)... 9,870 75% 43,390 78% (d) 10,750,000£

...or will pay the rent and may work faster 2,320 18% 9,620 17% (d) 8,630,000£ 510,000£

...or will pretend clearing the CW, work

faster and risk a daily penalty 1,040 8% 2,770 5% (d) 2,020,000£ 180,000£ 450,000£

rents (£m) 10.7

penalties (£m) 0.2

Transfers (£m) 10.8

new woring practices (£m) 11.7

administration of the scheme (£m) 1.5

Costs (£m) 13.2 97.4

8.4

delays and diversions (£m) 99.5

journey time reliability (£m) 11.1

Benefits (£m) 110.5

Net Benefits (£m)

Benefit : Cost ratio

Reading notes:

(a) 65% of the TLRN works volume is impacting the CMAs. CMAs actually cover 55% of the TLRN. This difference is explained by the works‟ spatial footprint which often overlaps the CMAs.

(b) 65% of the CMA works volume is estimated to occupy the carriageway at traffic sensitive times.

(c) 4% of the CMA works occupying the carriageway at traffic sensitive times would be eligible for exemptions. The remaining 96% is the volume of works which will have to change practices or face charges.

(d) Respective shares of works volume across 3 main options: clearing the carriageway, paying a rent or dodging the charges. Note the sum of cumulated duration across the three options may be different from the cumulated duration of baseline CMA works occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive times and not exempt. This is because works duration are affected by the decision to pay a rent or to limit the activity to less sensitive times.

(e) Virtual volume of charges if work promoters didn‟t change their working practices.


36 of 55

Base 2015 Scenario – Annual Costs and Benefits

Behaviour Change Summary Works % Duration % Rent Penalties

Cost of new

working

practices

baseline volume of works 44,260 0% 129,770 0%

of which in scope for lane rental (CMA) 29,320 66% 84,240 65% (a)

of which impact the carriageway (CW) at traffic

sensitive (TS) times 13,780 47% 54,970 65% (b)

of which not exempt 13,230 96% 52,770 96% (c) 71,810,000£ (e)

of which will avoid a rent by clearing the CW

at TS times (but may last longer)... 10,120 76% 44,760 80% (d) 7,850,000£

...or will pay the rent and may work faster 2,140 16% 8,760 16% (d) 7,800,000£ 450,000£

...or will pretend clearing the CW, work

faster and risk a daily penalty 970 7% 2,540 5% (d) 1,830,000£ 170,000£ 410,000£

rents (£m) 9.6

penalties (£m) 0.2

Transfers (£m) 9.8

new woring practices (£m) 8.7

administration of the scheme (£m) 1.0

Costs (£m) 9.7 103.4

11.6

delays and diversions (£m) 101.9

journey time reliability (£m) 11.3

Benefits (£m) 113.2

Net Benefits (£m)

Benefit : Cost ratio

Reading notes:

(a) 65% of the TLRN works volume is impacting the CMAs. CMAs actually cover 55% of the TLRN. This difference is explained by the works‟ spatial footprint which often overlaps the CMAs.

(b) 65% of the CMA works volume is estimated to occupy the carriageway at traffic sensitive times.

(c) 4% of the CMA works occupying the carriageway at traffic sensitive times would be eligible for exemptions. The remaining 96% is the volume of works which will have to change practices or face charges.

(d) Respective shares of works volume across 3 main options: clearing the carriageway, paying a rent or dodging the charges. Note the sum of cumulated duration across the three options may be different from the cumulated duration of baseline CMA works occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive times and not exempt. This is because works duration are affected by the decision to pay a rent or to limit the activity to less sensitive times.

(e) Virtual volume of charges if work promoters didn‟t change their working practices.


37 of 55

Sensitivity analysis

The modelling exercise undertaken in the present report is based on a set of assumptions, to which a certain level of uncertainty is attached. This section of the document outlines the sensitivity of the main indicators, Net Social Benefit and BCR, to a range of assumptions around to which the main uncertainties are attached.

The choice of a baseline demand for works on the TLRN has a moderate impact on the cost benefit analysis.

The next assumption to be checked is that of the share of works within the baseline volume occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive time prior to the introduction of lane rental. In the central scenario, 65% of the CMA works volume is estimated to occupy the carriageway at traffic sensitive times. In the HIGH scenario, this share is 74%. In the LOW scenario, it is 43%. These changes have almost no impact on the BCR but a significant one for works promoters. In the high share scenario, the cost to works promoters rises by more than 10%.

The cost of new working practices is a crucial assumption in the model. A four-fold variation of these costs leads to a two-fold variation in the costs to works promoters and a three-fold variation in the BCR.

The frequency of inspections is assumed to be high in the base scenario. If it was set to a lower level, here called “moderate”, two main changes are noticeable:

a lower net social benefit caused by a lower level of behaviour change amongst works promoters

a better BCR due to lower enforcement costs and lower behaviour change

The negative publicity is a virtual cost put on top of the penalty when works promoters are caught occupying the carriageway without paying a rent. Its value is originally set to £1000. Alternative values of £500 and £2000 are tested. They have no impact on the BCR. The model predicts that higher levels of negative publicity would encourage a greater behaviour change, but with an elasticity which is relatively low.

The assumptions on the external costs of works have been laid out by works category. If all work-days have the same external cost on the travelling public, which is called here a “flat model”, benefits would fall by a third. The net social benefit and the BCR would also fall by a third.

The total external cost of works carried out on the TfL Road Network is estimated to £300m p.a. By testing the effect of choosing a value 30% lower, we cover the risk of overestimating the value of time or the impact of works on the network.

In the base scenario, it is assumed that works previously occupying the carriageway during traffic sensitive times could have their external costs cut by


38 of 55

70% if they adopted new working practices. Instead, if one considered a 40% cut, the BCR would fall by 40%.


39 of 55

Table 3: Sensitivity analysis based on a 2012 scenario

Scenario

Admin

Cost (£m)

Rents and

Penalties (£m)

Cost of new

working practices

(£m)

Net Social

Benefit (£m)

Benefit

/Cost Ratio

BASELINE A - Works started in 2010 1.5 10.8 11.7 97 8.4

BASELINE B - Works started in 2009 1.8 13.5 14.6 88 6.3

BASELINE C - Works ended in 2010 1.6 12.0 13.8 107 7.9

Share of baseline on TS times LOW 1.3 7.3 8.4 69 8.0

Share of baseline on TS times HIGH 1.5 12.4 13.0 108 8.4

Cost of new practices x0.5 1.4 9.1 6.5 107 14.4


Inspection freq. MODERATE 0.9 10.7 10.4 87 8.7

Negative publicity £0500 1.6 12.1 11.3 95 8.4


External costs flat model 1.5 10.8 11.7 63 5.7

External costs LOW 1.5 10.8 11.7 64 5.9

Congestion -40% 1.5 10.8 11.7 53 5.0

Table 4: Sensitivity analysis based on a 2015 scenario

Scenario

Admin

Cost (£m)

Rents and

Penalties (£m)

Cost of new

working practices

(£m)

Net Social

Benefit (£m)

Benefit

/Cost Ratio

BASELINE A - Works started in 2010 1.0 9.8 8.7 103 11.6

BASELINE B - Works started in 2009 1.2 12.2 10.9 95 8.8

BASELINE C - Works ended in 2010 1.1 10.8 10.2 114 11.0

Share of baseline on TS times LOW 0.9 6.5 6.3 73 11.1

Share of baseline on TS times HIGH 1.1 11.2 9.7 115 11.7



Inspection freq. MODERATE 0.6 9.8 7.8 93 12.0



External costs flat model 1.0 9.8 8.7 68 8.0

External costs LOW 1.0 9.8 8.7 69 8.1

Congestion -40% 1.0 9.8 8.7 58 7.0


40 of 55

Costs and benefits by year

Assumption: linear changes between 2012 and 2015 and stability thereafter.


41 of 55

Net present values

At 2020 the scheme could realise a present net benefit of £860m (in 2012 value).

The benefit:cost ratio stands at 10:1 on this period.

Year Costs (£m)

Benefits (£m)

Discounted Costs (£m)

Discounted Benefits

(£m)

Discounted Net Benefits

(£m)

Benefit Cost Ratio

2011 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 -0.2 0 : 1

2012 13.2 110.5 13.2 110.5 97.4 8 : 1

2013 12.0 111.4 11.6 107.5 95.9 9 : 1

2014 10.9 112.3 10.1 104.6 94.4 10 : 1

2015 9.7 113.2 8.7 101.7 93.0 12 : 1

2016 9.7 113.2 8.4 98.1 89.7 12 : 1

2017 9.7 113.2 8.1 94.7 86.6 12 : 1

2018 9.7 113.2 7.9 91.4 83.5 12 : 1

2019 9.7 113.2 7.6 88.2 80.6 12 : 1

2020 9.7 113.2 7.3 85.1 77.8 12 : 1

Net present value (£m) 83 882 799 11 : 1

Note we use a discount rate of 3.5%, in accordance to the Department for

Transport‟s recommendation laid out in TAG Unit 3.5.4: Cost Benefit Analysis (April

2011).

“Discounting is a technique used to compare costs and benefits that occur in

different time periods. It is based on the principle known as time preference

that people prefer goods and services now rather than later. This preference

for goods and services now rather than later applies to both individuals and

society.”



42 of 55

Non Monetised Costs and Benefits

The induction phenomenon

It can be argued that the monetised elements of the present business case rely on the assumption that a lane rental scheme would not influence the level of traffic on the roads. The econometric model is designed to identify the marginal benefit of removing one unit of roadwork, but cannot predict the impact of a fundamental and permanent change in the working practices. The risk is that, by making the road network more attractive on a predictable basis, the volume of underlying traffic demand would increase.

Most of the days, because of congestion on the road network, a share of the road users are found on paths which are used to bypass congestion on the main roads. In a way, this is the spill over from main roads to minor roads. By improving capacity on the TLRN, the lane rental scheme would change the equilibrium between the TLRN and other roads. A range of road users would divert and choose to use the TLRN as they would naturally do if there was no congestion. In other words, by improving the reliability of the TLRN, traffic may decrease on other roads, which in turn will make these roads less congested.

The consequence is that any improvement of capacity on the TLRN will reduce congestion on the TLRN as well as on alternative roads. This phenomenon is known as the Wardrop user equilibrium. If a new equilibrium is reached after the introduction of lane rental, the performance of the TLRN would have increased as much as the performance of the rest of the London road network.

Since the benefits delivered by lane rental will be spread over the entire London roads network, it is very likely that some form of induction would take place. In this document, induction could be defined as the change in the volume of traffic on all London roads during day-time (7am-7pm) observed after a two-year adaptation time. This is the outcome of five different degrees of liberty i.e. changes in travel patterns caused by the higher level of performance on the entire London road network:

a mode shift which would increase demand for travel by car and by bus

a change in the time of travel, taking advantage of a lower level of congestion during day-time

a higher frequency of trips

a change of destination, taking advantage of more remote opportunities

a slow change of land-use and the possible relocation of households and businesses

Induction can be seen as a problem since it would cause some congestion and offset a part of the benefits already quantified in this document. Because induction can take many months or years to appear, it is very difficult to isolate and measure


43 of 55

its scale amongst the range of other factors influencing travel patterns in the transport system.

Considering this level of uncertainty, one could consider that the upper bound induction is estimated by assuming that road users would fully re-invest their journey-time savings into additional kilometres. This can be expressed as a value of the elasticity of demand with respect to journey time being equal to -1. Other values of this elasticity are also tested in this document: -0.66 (the central assumption) and -0.33.

These values reflect the range of results observed in case studies, as summarised by Dr Robert B. Noland9 from Imperial College London:

Travel demand elasticities from the literature, even for significantly different formulations of induced demand, appear to be developing some consensus in their results. The U.S. DOT (1997) utilizes an elasticity of VMT with respect to total travel costs of -0.8 for a five year period and -1.0 for a twenty-year period in conducting its highway needs analysis. The U.K.’s SACTRA report (1994) found an elasticity of travel with respect to travel time ranging from -0.5 to -1.0, leading to official adoption of a national position requiring induced demand to be addressed in policy and project evaluation. Goodwin (1996) found a travel time elasticity of -0.28 in the short term and -0.57 in the long-term, with evaluation being conducted at the individual project level.

Induction is an issue because any additional traffic during day time on the London road network is likely to cause a great disbenefit to other road users by making congestion worse. This phenomenon can be approached using an elasticity value: the elasticity of journey time with respect to traffic level. Our research is showing that this value is probably greater than 2. This means that a 1% increase in traffic would cause at least a 2% increase in journey time. Values of 2, 3 and 4 are tested in this report, with a value of 3 being the central assumption.

The behaviour model is suggesting that £102m per annum could be saved through improved link journey times and reduced diversions, in 2015 if induction didn‟t take place. Compared to the total value of the time spent on London roads by day time (£13,128m) this equates to a 0.78% drop. It is assumed that a part of this drop is caused by a reduced use of diversion routes i.e. a drop of 34m vehicle-kilometres (a 0.15% drop), and that another part is caused by a lower journey time per link (0.63% lower). For the sensitivity analysis, two other scenarios are considered in which the drop of diversion traffic is set to 23m and 46m vehicle-kilometres.

With all previous assumptions, in 2015 which is after more than a two-year induction time, the levels of traffic and of congestion are expected to be as follows:

9 Noland, R., Cowart, W. Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle

Miles of Travel. Transportation Research Board 79th Annual Meeting, January 9-13, 2000, Washington, DC http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/staff/wp1-noland.pdf

http://www.cts.cv.ic.ac.uk/staff/wp1-noland.pdf


44 of 55

Traffic level on Greater London roads during day-time would remain equal to the traffic level without lane rental. The sensitivity analysis predicts changes in traffic ranging10 [-0.07% +0.04%] as the induction volume is offsetting the diversion savings

Journey time per link would decrease by 0.23% thanks to the TfL lane rental scheme, providing a gross benefit of £30m in link journey time savings. The sensitivity analysis predicts changes ranging [0.16% 0.29%]. Considering the benefit of having fewer diversions, the journey time per set origin-destination would decrease by 0.38%, providing a gross benefit of £50m.

scenario

delays and diversions

savings (£m) change in OD journey times

change in link journey time

change in traffic level on London

roads (7am 7pm)

2015 without induction

101.9 -0.78% -0.63% -0.15%

2015 with induction

49.9 -0.38% -0.23% 0.00%

10

Ranges given between brackets reflect the 20% and 80% percentiles in the range of results coming from the Monte-Carlo simulations.


45 of 55

Would induction be considered in a monetised analysis of the costs and benefits of the lane rental scheme, the gross benefit would be eroded from £113m to £61m. This is calculated by adding link journey time savings of £30m, diversion savings of £20m and JTR savings worth £11m. Note that the last two components are assumed to be insensitive to traffic induction. As a consequence, the 2015 BCR would be reduced to 6:1.

Although the scheme is likely to be traffic neutral, it is worth noting that the London road network will carry more people further afield thanks to the reduced amount of diverted traffic.

This discussion on traffic induction suggests that the monetised benefit cost ratio presented earlier in the document may be overestimated. Nevertheless, another phenomenon has been ignored in the benefit cost ratio which could be associated with a great benefit: the agglomeration effect.

Agglomeration effects

Quoting a report by Colin Buchanan on the economic impacts of tall buildings11:

“Increased density leads to increased productivity in five key ways:

increased specialisation – there may be enough business to support a general accountant or lawyer in a small town but in a large city there is enough to support business advisers who specialise in very narrow fields of work thereby improving efficiency and expertise;

knowledge spillovers, both between firms in the same sector and across sectors, leading to increased innovation;

competition – the presence of lots of firms offering similar products spurs on competition, innovation and efficiency and there are lots of buyers to compete for;

larger labour markets offer wide choices for employers and the opportunity to recruit staff with specialist skills;

economies of scale are created by serving larger markets.

These impacts are commonly referred to as agglomeration impacts. Importantly, this link between density (or agglomeration) and increased output has been extensively researched and quantified. In essence, the research shows that a doubling of employment density within a given area can lead to a 12.5% additional increase in output per worker in that area. For the service sector the figure is far higher at 22%.”

11

The economic impact of high density development and tall buildings in central business districts, A report for the British Property Federation by Colin Buchanan and Partners, September 2008


46 of 55

By providing a better network performance, the Lane Rental Scheme would virtually increase the density by expanding the size of the market which can be covered within a set journey time. Based on this principle, the business case for lane rental could be solely built on the agglomeration benefits and ignore the valuation of journey time savings. In quantitative terms, a „post-induction‟ reduction of OD journey times of 0.38% would generate a 0.05% change in regional output, an economic benefit estimated to £128m per annum12.

This section suggests that a traditional calculation of journey time savings without induction could be replaced by a more complex estimation of induction and agglomeration effects. Either way, the gross economic benefit would be greater than £100m per annum.

Road structure

It is hard to predict the impact of new working practices on road structure. The use of different reinstatement materials will have different pros and cons which the lane rental research fund will investigate.

It can be argued that utilities would reduce/rationalise their use of the TLRN, at least on the CMAs. In this case, the stress on road structure would be reduced proportionally.

Road Safety

In London the attendant circumstances, casualty and vehicle data associated with each personal injury collision are recorded by the Metropolitan and City of London police services in accordance with the Stats 19 reporting system as specified by the DfT for the national database for collisions occurring on the public highway. The collision data is processed by the Metropolitan Police service and forwarded to the London Road Safety Unit within TfL on a monthly basis. The data is then run through the ACCSTATS suite of programs, which validates and assigns the collisions to the LRSU collision network.

Over the five years from 2006 to 2010, collision data were extracted on the TLRN from ACCSTATS for the following two separate criteria:

Contributory factor: Temporary Road Layout, e.g. contra-flow

Special conditions at site: Road Works (Utility and HA works)

12

explicit calculation: £269,000m [London workplace-based gross value added 2008 in 2011 prices] * 0.38% [change in OD journey times after induction] * 50% [conservative share of taxi/car/truck/bus in the transport mix] * 2 [elasticity of virtual density with regards to speed] * 0.125 [elasticity of output per head with regards to density]


47 of 55

Table 5: Five years summary of accident in the context of TLRN road works

Time of Day Fatal Serious Slight

Day [8am-8pm] 1 25 194

Night 2 28 106

Total 3 53 300

The table shows that most of the serious casualties in the context of TLRN road works happen overnight, between 8pm and 8am, although only a minority of the traffic is using the network at these times. On average on the TLRN, in the presence of roadworks or temporary layouts,

10 persons each year are seriously injured,

60 persons each year suffer slight injuries.

In financial terms, the cost to the society of these casualties can be estimated to £3.9m per annum in 2002 prices13. However, it wouldn‟t be fair to fully associate this cost to road works as there can be many other contributory factors to these accidents.

The volume of works currently undertaken at night is unknown due to limitation in the quality of the data in the local register and in the permit conditions. For that reason, it is impossible to say how much more dangerous night works are. One could notice however the higher severity of such accidents.

During night time, the increased level of activity caused by the lane rental scheme may lead to an increased number of casualties. During day time however, a decrease in works-related casualties can be expected as the level of activity would decrease and the frequent inspections would drive safety standards up.

In total, the effect of lane rental on road safety is uncertain. Considering the current level of accidents in the context of TLRN roadworks, the amplitude of the changes would be limited and very difficult to detect in statistical terms.

Health and safety in the industry

It is anticipated that an increased volume of works in the evenings and at night would increase the number of accidents, either due to occupational hazards (e.g. deep excavations and tree cutting) or due to the exposure to faster traffic with poor visibility and with some drivers having their poorest level of attention.

13

TfL London values superseding DfT WebTAG unit 3.4.1 Annex A



48 of 55

Air quality and climate change

Smoother traffic flows tend to reduce vehicle‟s pollution emitted per kilometre. Locally, this will turn into a cleaner air. At the regional scale however, smoother traffic flows induce additional traffic to an extent that is potentially offsetting the gain in emission rates, which may have a detrimental effect on climate change.

The modelling of induction volumes, carried out in this report, suggests that the amount of vehicle-kilometres driven on London roads would remain stable, the induction being balanced by a reduction in diversions. Traffic volumes being equal, and the traffic being smoother, a reduction in tailpipe emissions is expected. This is a benefit for both the local air quality and the wider issue of climate change.

Emissions are extremely difficult to assess in macroscopic terms. The present report doesn‟t pretend to carry out accurate estimations of emissions savings. In order to simply assess the scale of this benefit however, let‟s assume that a 1% change in speed triggers a 0.1% change in tailpipe emissions per kilometre. Considering now that a 0.3% change in link speed is expected at best, the upper bound of emissions savings is 0.03% on all London roads‟ traffic over 7am-7pm. In terms of greenhouse gases, this is a saving of circa 2,000 Teq CO2.

After having looked at emissions from traffic, the second focus in terms of air quality and greenhouse gases is the use of generators to supply the energy needed in the lighting of works at night.

If 7,000 days of work were shifted into 10,000 evenings of work, where lighting needs to be supplied on average over 5 hours at a rate of 10kW, the industry would have to generate an additional 500,000kWh energy supply for light every year.

The use of diesel generators at night is very likely in the short term and will cause noise, along with local air pollution and greenhouse gases. Assuming that a generator would use 0.4L of diesel14 per kilowatt hour, and that the life cycle (well to wheel) emissions of diesel are 3.8kg of CO2e per litre15, the increased use of diesel generators for lighting purposes would emit 760 T CO2e per year.

In addition, considering the poor air quality in parts of London, generators would be a cause of concern for Londoner‟s health.

Assuming that the industry moves towards the adoption of batteries and fuel cells for generators in the long term some of the noise and local air pollution concerns would be addressed. However, the issue of climate change would remain because of the carbon intensity of the energy mix on the electric grid. Assuming we are in the region of 500g of CO2e per kWh16, 250 T CO2e would be generated to charge batteries.

14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_generator

15 2010 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors v1.2.1

16 electricity grid mix assumed to be 500g CO2e/kWh (2010 values published by DECC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_generator

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/conversion-factors.htm


49 of 55

Noise

With almost half a million people living within 100 metres of the Congestion Management Areas, the noise implications of the lane rental scheme would have a significant impact. Our analysis is based on the 2001 Census, hence ignoring the population staying in hotels along the network.

A density of 6,700 people per square kilometre is observed within 100 metres of the CMAs. Of particular concern would be 11km of higher band CMA and 11 pinch points where population density is above 10,000 people per square km.

Area

Population per square km

in CMAs

Population per square km

on the rest of the TLRN

Central London 6,800 6,700 Rest of Inner London 9,900 9,700 Outer London 4,400 3,300

London 6,700 4,500

Lane rental would add circa 10,000 days of work every year into evenings and night time. Let‟s assume they would be affecting on average 200 people each time within a 100 metre radius. The result would be 2 million nights of sleep deprivation per year if undertakers failed to finish their jobs by say 11pm. According to the mental health foundation, the cost of sleep deprivation to the UK economy is estimated at £1.6 billion every year.

In order to prevent such issues, the LRS allows promoters to work free of charge during certain times of the year and in most hours over the weekend. In addition, lane rental is an incentive for promoters to jointly rent the carriageway during the day in order to carry out collaborative working. They would share the rent amongst themselves.

We anticipate many Boroughs environmental noise officers will allow works to take place until 11pm on a case by case basis, with the possibility to carry out the least noisy activities further into the night.

There may be an overhead cost for Boroughs to handle an increased number of night works and resident‟s correspondence. We believe the consultation process will help clarify these costs.

Long term reduction in the number of works on the TLRN

Over time it would be expected that utility companies will respond to the development of the lane rental scheme on the TLRN by further developing their own working practises. A rational response would be to develop their utility networks in a way that are less reliant on the TLRN. If we assume that utilities would reduce/rationalise their use of the TLRN. If the total volume of utility works on the TLRN drops by 5% on the CMAs this corresponds to another £6m worth of works related disruption externalities avoided.


50 of 55

Cycling and walking

In the first instance, the London Lane Rental scheme would not impose any charge on works occupying the pavement only. The occupation of pavement would only be regulated through permitting, with TfL managing a certain degree of coordination and prescribing the appropriate layout.

There is a risk that works promoters will shift some level of activity (i.e. pipework and network development) from the carriageway to the pavements in order to save on charges. In order to prevent this move, TfL will clearly state the implementation timeframe of a pavement rental scheme.

In the short term however, it is unavoidable that the occupation of the pavements will increase as a result of the lane rental scheme, during peak times, for the parking of vehicles and the storage of materials. Moreover, works choosing to clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times, having less time to work every day, are likely to last longer: hence a will have a longer lasting effect on pavements.

As a consequence, there is a high probability for the lane rental to deter walking along the congestion management areas. The increased level of inspections will contribute to a reduction of this impact by frequently controlling the footprint of works on pavements.

The reduced level of congestion achieved with lane rental would not deliver a major benefit to cyclists for the reason that their journey times are insensitive to congestion. One could note the risk that lane rental would allow an increased volume of traffic to flow on the TfL Road Network, travelling at higher speeds, reducing the safety and attractiveness of cycling.

Distributional Effects

As already mentioned, new working practices will have a cost in the short term that may lead to an increase in utility bills. Considering that the cost to utilities would be along the lines of £12m per year, and in the case this cost was fully supported by Londoners, this would lead to a £3 increase of the average annual household bills.

We anticipate much greater benefits in terms of congestion relief and hope this would profit all Londoners at least in two ways:

By supporting the economy (cheaper and more reliable deliveries, wider job markets, etc.)

By improving reliability for bus services as well as for general traffic. We would like to repeat that the Congestion Management Areas are also designed to address congestion on the sensitive popular bus routes. Bus patronage was taken into account during the design of CMAs.


51 of 55

Our view is every Londoner, even if they don‟t drive, will benefit from more reliable bus journeys and cheaper retail prices. Distributional effects across income range are therefore assumed to be negligible.

However, some people living along the TLRN may lose out. They would bear the noise of evening and night works and could see an increase in traffic near their homes.

Effects on businesses

Business users and transport providers are expected to take advantage of the majority of the gross social benefit related to lane rental. On the basis of London specific figures for traffic composition, trip purposes and occupancy, TfL estimates that businesses will benefit from 51% of the external cost savings17. This equates to £57m p.a. from 2015 onward.

On the other hand, the utility companies will face a bill of £11.6m p.a. in lane rental charges, penalties and new working practices.

Therefore, the ratio of benefits to costs can be estimated at 5:1 from the point of view of businesses.

17

TfL internal calculations: Monetary Value of Time Version B.3 (2010.02.04)


52 of 55

Appraisal Summary Table

TAG Unit 2.7.2: Appraisal Summary Table (February 2004)

Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative

Eco

no

my

Business users & transport providers

reduction of journey times and of diversions during peak times

£52m per year Excellent

Reliability impact on Business users

reduction of journey times variability during peak times

£6m per year Excellent

Wider Impacts jobs creation through research and implementation of new technologies, whose cost may fall on

households through their utility bills Unknown Unknown

En

vir

on

men

tal

Noise Increased level of noise in the evenings, Saturday mornings and Sunday mornings 500,000 residents

along the CMAs Poor

Air Quality Improvement due to reduced congestion, while traffic levels are kept stable. Risk of deterioration at

night due to power generators

-0.03% on emissions from all

London roads‟ traffic over 7am-7pm

Fair

Greenhouse gases

Improvement due to reduced congestion while traffic levels are kept stable. Deterioration due to power

generation at night.

reduction in non-traded carbon over 1y (CO2e) : 1,000t

Fair

So

cia

l

Non-business users

reduction of journey times and of diversions during peak times

commuters: £11m other users: £39m

Excellent

reduction of journey times variability during peak times

commuters: £1m other users: £4m

Excellent

Physical activity

Travelling by by bus or by car would become more attractive. Cycling should not be impacted. Walking

could become less attractive along the TLRN. Unknown

Accidents Reduction of the volume of works under heavy peak traffic. Better safety standards driven by frequent inspections. Occupational health issue with night works under artificial light and faster night traffic.

Unknown

Affordability Costs would increase for utility companies Poor

Pu

blic A

cco

un

ts Cost to Broad

Transport Budget

TfL will face higher costs when implementing highway schemes, which may delay their delivery agenda. Developer contributors will face higher

section 106 charges. Poor

Indirect Tax Revenues

Fuel duty: reduced consumption due to smoother traffic and reduced diversions, partly balanced by

the induction of additional traffic. reduced tax income

of £540,000 (690,000L of fuel)

Neglectable

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/unit2.7.2.php


53 of 55

Monitoring and Evaluation

Challenges

As already stated, it is anticipated that the improved traffic conditions will be noticed across the whole London road network, not only on the TLRN. This is the reason why it will be difficult to measure all of the changes accruing from the implementation of the scheme.

Outcomes

The improvement in link journey time is expected to be somewhere between 0.61% in the short term, prior to induction taking place, and 0.20% after induction is taken into account. In terms of total delays this equates to a reduction of between 0.63% and 2.1%. Measuring these changes will be a real challenge. The following section outlines the tools that will be utilised and the key monitoring indicators that will be utilised.

Tools and Key Monitoring Indicators

The list of tools set out below is highlighting the fact that data collection is always starting well ahead of the scheme being implemented

The local register will be used to monitor the volume of works and compare the trends on the CMAs against the rest of the TLRN. The time series will start in January 2009. The key monitoring indicators from this data set will be:

a) The numbers and durations of work phases on routes within the TLRN CMA compared to those on the TLRN but outside of the CMA both pre and post the lane rental scheme implementation and within and outside of traffic sensitive times.

The lane rental billing statistics will show the shares of works choosing to pay the rent, to clear the carriageway during traffic sensitive times or to risk collecting penalties. The time series will start in October 2011, at the time a shadow lane rental scheme will start. The key monitoring indicators from this data set will be:

b) The charges paid by operators for lane rental by location and traffic sensitive time.

c) The charges paid by operators for avoidance of lane rental charges including all prosecution proceeds.


54 of 55

User satisfaction: In 2010 a new online customer satisfaction survey was conducted among people who had used the TLRN by any of the following modes: (Car, Pedestrian, Bus, Motorcycle/scooter/moped, Taxi/commercial delivery/emergency vehicle, Cycle). Amongst other questions it polls the opinion of motorists on 1) Could you accurately estimate how long the journey would take, 2) Speed, 3) Traffic Congestion, and 4) The management of road works. Future annual publications of this survey will look for an improvement in these scores following the implementation of the lane rental scheme.

LCAP will provide data from to monitor journey times on the TLRN within the CMAs. Time series starts in January 2009. The benefit of having LCAP coverage on the TLRN is that it has excellent spatial and temporal coverage. Five minute aggregate journey time data that can be used to calculate speeds, congestion and journey time reliability make it easier to detect the impact of large schemes such as the proposed lane rental scheme. The key monitoring indicators from this data set will be:

d) Journey times on routes within the TLRN CMA compared to those on the TLRN but outside of the CMA both pre and post the lane rental scheme implementation and within and outside of traffic sensitive times.

e) Journey time reliability on routes within the TLRN compared to those on the TLRN but outside of the CMA both pre and post the lane rental scheme implementation and within and outside of traffic sensitive times..

f) Reduction in direct delay (congestion) associated with roadworks disruption. This will be measured in terms of reduction in delay in minutes per km on routes within the TLRN CMA compared to those on the TLRN but outside of the CMA both pre and post the lane rental scheme implementation and within and outside of traffic sensitive times.

Automatic counters for vehicular traffic / cyclists will be used to look at any change in flows on the CMAs. The key monitoring indicator from this data set will be:

g) To compare vehicular traffic / cyclists on routes within the TLRN CMA compared to those on the TLRN but outside of the CMA both pre and post the lane rental scheme implementation and within and outside of traffic sensitive times.

Time Frames

With the Olympics in 2012, the proper full year period on which we could monitor the effects of lane rental would be October 2012-September 2013. Depending on the time lags in data collection (in particular for GPS floating vehicle data or for billing statistics) an evaluation report could be completed by January 2014.


55 of 55

Appendix 1

Location of Automatic Traffic Counters Used in Flow Analysis

Borough Location Borough Location

Camden Finchley Road Bromley London Road Bromley

Hammersmith & Fulham

Gt West Rd Hsmith EB

Croydon Brighton Road

Islington Camden Road Croydon Purley Way

Kensington & Chelsea Brompton Road Croydon Wickham Road

Kensington & Chelsea Warwick Road Ealing NCR Hanger Lane

Lambeth Kennington Lane Ealing West Ave Clayton EB

Lambeth Streatham High Road Greenwich Well Hall Road

Lewisham Waldram Park Road Greenwich Westhorne Avenue EB

Newham A12 M11 Link Road EB

Greenwich Westhorne Avenue WB

Newham Royal Docks Road N Hillingdon Hayes Bypass

Newham Royal Docks Road S Hounslow Chiswick Bridge

Southwark Rotherhithe Tunnel Hounslow County Way SB

Tower Hamlets East India Dock Road Hounslow Gt West Rd Hs'low

Tower Hamlets Mile End Road Hounslow Staines Road

Wandsworth East Hill Kingston upon Thames

Kingston Bypass SB

Wandsworth Tooting Bec Road Richmond upon Thames

Twickenham Bridge

Barnet Hendon Way NB Sutton Cheam Road

Barnet Hendon Way SB Sutton London Road Sutton

Documents

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON LANE RENTAL SCHEME - … · TRANSPORT FOR LONDON LANE RENTAL SCHEME for regulating works related activities in the street Cost Benefit Analysis Prepared by Transport