|
(Note: This Monograph has been reproduced
by kind permission of the Commission for the New Towns now known as English
Partnerships. It is published for general interest and research purposes
only and may not be reproduced for other purposes except with the permission
of English Partnerships who now hold the copyright of LDDC publications)
Top of
Page
10. CITY AIRPORT 
The idea
Early problems
Set for success
Rest of Part II
Index Page
The idea
London City Airport (LCY) emerged as a serious proposal
at a dinner party late in 1981. Around the table were Philip Beck, Chairman
of John Mowlem & Co PLC, Bill Bryce, then running Brymon Airways,
a regional commuter airline based at Plymouth, and Reg Ward, Chief Executive
of the LDDC. Everyone round the table had a good reason to be interested
in the idea of a new Airport. Philip Beck was looking for new investment
opportunities in Docklands. Reg Ward was looking for an eye-catching project.
He wanted to change perceptions of the Royal Docks from a nineteenth century
image of docks and ships to one based on technology and innovation. Brymon
Airways were interested in expanding and saw the opportunity to develop
a STOLPORT (short take off and landing airport) which would serve businesses
in the City and in Docklands.
A disused quay between the Royal Albert and King George
V Docks was identified as the best site. It was the right size and its
east-west alignment would mean that traffic using the new LCY would be
operating in the same direction as traffic using Heathrow, Gatwick and
Luton. This would make it easier for the air traffic control authorities
to cope with the facility.
There followed a period of some months during which
Mowlem sought to sell the idea of the Airport locally. A number of trips
to Plymouth were arranged for local people and in June 1982 the concept
was demonstrated in Docklands when a DHC-7 was landed on a cleared area
of quayside at Heron Wharf on the Isle of Dogs (now Heron Quays). The
DHC-7 proved to be a quiet aeroplane and most of the early fears evaporated.
Two public opinion polls taken at about this time indicated
growing support for the Airport as a new facility bringing life and hope
back to the area. In 1984 a planning application was submitted by Mowlem
for the Airport and was the subject of a Public Inquiry lasting four months.
There was a full examination of the noise, safety and wider planning issues.
Could the land be used more beneficially for other purposes? Would the
Airport prevent desirable development in the wider area?
A year or so later the Secretary of State for the Environment
announced his decision. He gave permission for the Airport to be constructed
subject to a number of conditions. The most important conditions were
that the Airport could be used only by the DHC-7 or aircraft of similar
operating characteristics, the number of air traffic movements would be
limited to 120 per day on weekdays and 40 at weekends, there were to be
no helicopters and there would be no flying at night.
Work could now go ahead to design and build the AirporL
The concept was to a specialist airport to cater mainly for business travellers
and the whole scheme cost £30 million. The airport terminal was
designed by Richard Seifert to a high specification. It opened for traffic
on 26 October, 1987 with a formal opening by HM the Queen on 5 November,
accompanied by a dramatic firework display in Beckton.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Early
problems
During 1988 the Airport had problems with air traffic
control. It had been agreed that pending the reorganisation of controlled
airspace over London, LCY traffic would fly at lower. uncontrolled levels
but with a radar advisory service provided from Heathrow and Gatwick.
The problem was that the Gatwick Low Altitude service
was not always available and, given the complexity of air traffic in the
locality, there was serious concern among pilots and newspaper reports
of 'near-misses'.
The problem was resolved by allowing southbound traffic
from LCY to climb into the lower reaches of the controlled airspace regulated
by Gatwick Approach Controllers who are on duty 24 hours a day.
The Airport opened with scheduled services to Paris,
Amsterdam and Brussels. Internal flights to Plymouth, Jersey and Guernsey
were introduced but were not successful and were withdrawn.
It became apparent in the first year of operation that
LCY needed to develop more European destinations. The DHC-7s did not have
sufficient range. The answer was to introduce the British Aerospace 146
turbo fan aircraft and other regional jets which are faster and larger,
and with a longer range (1000 miles radius of London) could serve almost
all European airports. These would need a longer runway, however, and
so a planning application was submitted to extend the Airport runway from
750 metre to 1200 metres.
In July 1990, nearly three years after the Airport had
opened, there was a second public inquiry. The Inspector concluded that
the expansion of the airport would be of benefit to the economy of east
London and the City, although there would be an increase in noise levels.
The Secretaries of State of the DoE and DoT allowed the application subject
to conditions and limitations on noise.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Set for success
Once the runway was extended the airport started to attract
services to new European destinations. The opening of the new Docklands
highways in May 1993 was a milestone in improved accessibility from the
City and substantial growth in passenger numbers was achieved in 1993/4.
Since then passenger numbers have grown steadily to reach 727,000 in 1996
and the airport's managers expect to achieve more than 1 million in 1997,
and 2 million by 2000. The airport was bought from its original owners,
Mowlem, in 1996 by Irish interests with the intention of pushing forward
with its expansion. While it already had 12 airlines operating from it
in May 1997, serving 19 destinations, the new business strategy is to
try to secure mature airlines serving the top 25 destinations which are
most in demand. With this growth in mind, the airport needs improved public
transport links. There is already a bus service from nearby Prince Regent
Lane DLR station which calls at the airport but the main step up in accessibility
will come with the opening of Canning Town Station in 1998, with the Jubilee
Line Extension, DLR and the North London Line a few minutes away by airport
shuttle bus. In the longer term, the Woolwich Rail Tunnel scheme would
improve public transport connections from south east London and a travelator
link between Silvertown Station and the airport would be feasible.
Note by Webmaster: For more information
about London City Airport visit the website of the London City Airport Consultative Committee.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
11. Pedestrians, cyclists and bridges
Issues and priorities
Establishing a good pedestrian network
River and dock edge access
Disabled access
The Docklands pedestrian bridges
Development of a cycle network
Large Illustrations
Figure 40: River and dock edge access (129kb)
Figure 41: St Saviour's riverside, Bermondsey (43KB)
Figure 42: West India Quay-Canary Wharf-South Quay
pedestrian links (44kb)
Figure 43: The LDDC's Strategic Cycle Network (119kb)
Table 6: Cycle Routes in Docklands (42kb)
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Index Page
Issues and priorities
As much as with any other form of transport, pedestrians
and cyclists faced severe access difficulties in Docklands. The river,
docks, busy roads, large derelict development sites and railway lines
created particular barriers to pedestrian and cycle movement. Much has
been done to address these problems.
Priorities have been to:
- establish a comprehensive network of safe and direct pedestrian routes.
- establish unrestricted public access to the dockside and river frontage
wherever possible.
- ensure that the new highway schemes within Docklands incorporated
good facilities for pedestrians.
- provide good pedestrian links across the docks.
- establish a coherent network of cycle routes to and through the UDA.
As the Corporation was not given highway powers it did
not have sole, or arguably even the major, responsibility for the provision
of pedestrian and cycle facilities. Its powers to plan and deliver such
facilities were also limited. It has nevertheless given priority as landowner
and developer to establishing a good network of pedestrian and cycle facilities
throughout Docklands.
In order to achieve its aspirations the Corporation
used its powers as a development control authority and as a substantial
landowner. It also needed to exercise considerable powers of persuasion
with other agencies including the highway authorities, the Port of London
Authority and the National Rivers Agency (now the Environment Agency),
and with developers and other landowners.
Within the area of the Enterprise Zone the Corporation's
powers were further limited and this made it particularly difficult to
secure good links to the Canary Wharf area, although this was finally
dealt with through the Master Building Agreement negotiations.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Establishing
a good pedestrian network
The basic principles and broad requirements for the pedestrian
network were established within area development frameworks. The Limehouse
Area Development Strategy (1982), for example, identified a network of
pedestrian routes which were to be secured, drawing attention to the need
to provide public access to the riverside, Regents Canal Dock (now Limehouse
Basin) and to the Regent and Limehouse Cut Canals.
Most commonly, pedestrian facilities have been directly
provided, either by the Corporation or developers. Frequently, new or
upgraded facilities were secured as part of major infrastructure projects.
The Docklands highways, for example, included many new pedestrian crossing
facilities. Contributions from developers included extensive lengths of
riverside and dock edge walkway. pedestrian rights of way through new
developments as well as contributions to major new infrastructure.
Other agencies also contributed to the upgrading of
pedestrian facilities in Docklands, including the Department of Transport
on the A13 and the local highway authorities. Major enhancement of pedestrian
facilities was also achieved as part of the DLR Beckton Extension which
included funding to provide pedestrian access both to the individual DLR
stations and across the DLR corridor. These faclities include a high quality
pedestrian/cycle underpass at Prestons Road roundabout, grade separated
crossings at the bowl stations at Cyprus and Beckton Park, and many new
pedestrian/cycle bridges including those at Poplar, East India Dock, and
Canning Town.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
River and dock edge access 
In general the Corporation sought to secure full 24
hour public access to all parts of the dock edge and riverside frontage.
It also sought to ensure that new developments incorporated high quality
landscape treatments in these sensitive areas. It has, however, adopted
a pragmatic approach to the inevitable conflicts between access and development
and this in certain instances led to restricted hours of access to walkways
adjacent to residential areas. (Fig 40 - 129kb)
The Corporation has had to enforce planning agreements
which provide public access to the river and dock edge and it has reinforced
public rights of access by providing extensive pedestrian signage. It
has also contributed to the Countryside Commission's Thames Path Initiative
by providing comprehensive signing of the Thames Path route through Docklands
between Tower Bridge and Greenwich. This was completed prior to the official
opening of the complete Thames Path Route between its source at Kemble
in Gloucestershire and the Thames Barrier in Greenwich in mid 1996.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Disabled access
The Corporation has also given priority to ensuring that
Docklands is fully accessible to all sections of the community, including
the disabled. This is reflected In the specification for the Docklands
Light Railway, which for example provides lift access to all high level
platforms and allows for wheelchair access onto trains. In recognition
of the importance of this issue the Corporation produced a guide Access
and Mobility which illustrates good practice both outside and inside
developments for use in assessing planning applications.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
The Docklands pedestrian bridges
The need for new pedestrian bridges throughout the Docklands
area arose from the severance caused by the large expanses of dock water
and the major road and rail corridors. For some time the LDDC considered
how best to overcome these severance problems in a way that recognised
the sensitivity and integrity of the dockscapes, and the sometimes conflicting
needs and views of water users, pedestrians, cyclists and developers.
St Saviour's Dock Bridge, Bermondsey
A pedestrian bridge across this dock, (once the mouth
of the River Neckinger) was originally proposed in 1981 alongside the
proposals to redevelop the historic warehouses at New Concordia Wharf.
At that time the developer was not able to fund the
proposed bridge. Subsequently the area blossomed, and the opening of the
Design Museum, the Butlers Wharf Gastrodome, and the development of the
Shad Thames and Mill Street warehouses have transformed the area. In 1993,
one year before the Corporation was due to leave the Bermondsey area,
the LDDC decided that the private sector would not now deliver a bridge,
and that such a bridge would be enormously beneficial in securing the
long term well being of the area.(Fig 41 - 43kb)
A local engineer (Bryn Bird) and architect (Nick Lacey)
won the contract to design the bridge, and following many months of consultation
with local residents and occupiers, a design was agreed.
The Design:
In this significant and sensitive conservation area it was important to
ensure that the design was complementary to the adjacent warehouses, and
respected a very prominent Thames frontage. The bridge needed to be able
to open to allow access
to dockside moorings, and to permit overnight closure of the bridge to
protect residents' amenity.
The architect, Nick Lacey, proposed a delicate stainless
steel cable stay swing bridge, reflecting the form of the cranes on the
adjacent warehouses, and presenting a filigree, transparent aspect both
from and to the River Thames. The structural principle is a bit like an
inside-out bicycle wheel: the suspension rods are the spokes and in place
of the (compression) wheel rim we have the horizontal and vertical tubes.
The visual effect is one of transparency - a kind of steel spider's web.
The contract for constructing the bridge was awarded in February 1995,
and the bridge was floated up the Thames and lifted into position on the
day after the Docklands bomb on 10th February 1996. It was formally opened
for public use by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, John
Gummer, alongside a new work of public art for the area, Exotic Cargo,
by Peter Randall Page, on lst March 1996.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Limekiln Dock Bridge, Limehouse
This bridge, across the Limekiln dock entrance, was
required in order to complete the footpath and cycle link along the riverside
route in Limehouse.
It also had to be an opening bridge to respect dockside
mooring rights, and to acknowledge in its design its very prominent position
adjacent to the Thames.
The design by YRM Anthony Hunt Associates was for a
sinuous swing bridge in painted steel. The bridge was opened to the public
in March 1996 by Lord David Owen, a local resident.
The Canary Wharf Footbridges
There had been, for many years, LDDC proposals to build
or have built pedestrian bridges across West India Dock, to the north
of Canary Wharf, and South Dock, to the south of Canary Wharf. These proposals
were given even more importance by the decision to build the Jubilee Line
and its station at Canary Wharf. After long but ultimately unsuccessful
attempts to persuade London Transport to provide the South Dock bridge
as a part of the Jubilee Line project in order to spread the benefit of
the Isle of Dogs station to a much wider catchment, the LDDC decided that
these bridges were of such importance in integrating Canary Wharf and
the Jubilee Line with the surrounding area that they should be LDDC funded.
It was decided that they should be built as soon as possible, subject
to the practicalities of building around the Jubilee Line construction
site, and they were to be passed after the exit of the LDDC to Canary
Wharf's developers for their long term maintenance.
In order to do justice to the prominence of the sites
for these bridges, and to try to elicit imaginative and innovative solutions
to the design problems and site constraints, the LDDC decided to go against
the then current convention of simply appointing an engineer to design
the structure, and instead invited joint teams of architects and engineers
to collaborate in invited design competitions. Longlists of architects
were interviewed and on the basis of these interviews shortlists were
established.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
South Quay Bridge at Canary Wharf 
The brief for this bridge was a complex one. The bridge
was required to cross the dock initially adjacent to the DLR viaduct,
and out of the way of the Jubilee construction site. It was a requirement
that at a later date it should be capable of being relocated and made
shorter, to position it on the desire line for pedestrian movement between
South Quay and Heron Quays, and to accommodate the future building out
into the dock of the Heron Quays site. (Fig 42 -
44kb) It was also required to be an opening bridge to permit access
for larger craft.
Six engineers were selected, and the competition invitation
was issued to these six. Within the brief a list of suggested architects
was provided, and the engineers were asked to team up with an architect
of their choice.
The six competition entries which resulted were of a
very high standard, and demonstrated the enormous potential of encouraging
collaborative working between the best architectural and engineering practices.
The Design:
The chosen design for South Quay, by engineers Jan Bobrowski and Partners
working with Chris Wilkinson Architects, was for an 'S' shaped bridge
180 metres long, comprising two identical sections one fixed and one slewing.
Each 90 metre section is supported by seven pairs of cable stays suspended
from a 32 metre mast. The construction contract was awarded in November
1995, and the bridge was completed in May 1997.
West
India Quay Footbridge
A similar competition was also run for this bridge design,
but in this case the architects were given the lead role and selected
an engineering partner to work with. Once again the competition entries
were exciting and innovative. The selected scheme, by architects Future
Systems, working with engineers Anthony Hunt Associates, was for a floating
pontoon bridge. The objective of the design was to span the 90 metres
between the two quays with as elegant and minimal a structure as possible,
and to give pedestrians a sense of freedom and space whilst crossing the
water. The contract for the bridge was awarded in November 1995 and the
bridge was opened by Michael Heseltine, the then Deputy Prime Minister,
in September 1996.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
St James Garden Footbridge
This fixed bridge across the northern entrance to the
Rotherhithe Tunnel forms a vital last link in the pedestrian and cycle
network. The design, which uses the metaphor of a butterfly, has two parabolic
tubular steel arches splayed as wings, with suspension wires supporting
the paved deck. The 22 metre bridge was based on a concept developed by
Nick Lacey and Bryn Bird, the designers of the St Saviour's Bridge, but
with detailed design by W S Atkins. The bridge is due for completion in
November 1997.
Royal Victoria Dock Footbridge
The design for this bridge was also chosen from a design competition
in which seven teams submitted proposals.
The
winning scheme, by engineers Techniker and architects Lifschutz Davidson,
was for an elegant cable stay bridge with a span of 128 metres, swung
between two 50 metre masts, at a height of 14 metres above the dock. At
200 metres this is the longest of the Docklands footbridges, and the brief
for its design required the needs of sailors and water users to be taken
into account as well as those of pedestrians. The bridge connects the
Urban Village at West Silvertown with the proposed Exhibition Centre and
with the stations at Custom House. The design allows for the future build
out into the dock proposed for the Exhibition Centre, and also safeguards
for the future addition of a transporter car to operate underneath the
bridge, thus allowing passengers to be carried across in security and
safety whilst also being protected from the elements. The viability of
the transporter, however, is dependent on the full development of the
surrounding dock estate.
North Woolwich Road Footbridge
The North Woolwich Bridge, which links the new Thames
Barrier Park (currently under construction) with the Urban Village and
the Royal Victoria Dock, is being designed as a stressed ribbon bridge
by engineer Robert Benaim in association with architect Eva Jiricna. This
minimalist structure will connect with the massive Green Dock, which is
a central feature in the design of the park. The bridge should be completed
in mid 1998.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Development of a Cycle Network
In 1982 there were no cycle facilities at all within
Docklands and not surprisingly very little cycling took place in the area.
During the early years of the life of the Corporation
cycling was given a relatively low priority. In part this reflected the
low status of cycling within the metropolis, with cycling being regarded
as an increasingly marginal mode. It also reflected the difficulty of
achieving agreements with the local highway authorities.
Nevertheless, some important local facilities were provided.
In the Surrey Docks Peninsula the general layout of roads and footways,
including some purpose built cycleways along the canal and dock side,
has created an environment which is extremely conducive to cycling. In
the Royal Docks the Corporation funded the provision of a new shared pedestrian
cycleway, 'The Silvertown Tramway' along the south side of North Woolwich
Road.
Since 1988 the Corporation has given a high priority
to the completion of a network of cycle routes and associated facilities.
In 1989 the principle was established of providing an east/west route
parallelling the new Docktands highways linking Canary Wharf and the Isle
of Dogs with the City and the Royal Docks.
In 1990 an internal review was made of cycle needs;
two studies were carried out: one covering the Isle of Dogs and Wapping
and the other the Royal Docks. The review coincided with a greater impetus
towards providing for cyclists both nationally and within London, witnessed
by the initiation by the London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) and
the Department of Transport of the '1000 rnile London Cycle Route Network'.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
The Corporation's studies identified a core network
of routes in Docklands (Fig 43 - 119kb) and
priority was given to securing its implementation. In taking forward the
implementation of this network a flexible approach has had to be adopted.
Some parts of the network had to be modified. An example is at Brunswick
Wharf (in Leamouth) where the economic recession put back the implementation
of a major new development which was to have incorporated the cycle link
between the Lower Lea Crossing and the Isle of Dogs. This led to a radical
rethink and a segregated cycle track has now been constructed alongside
Aspen Way between the Leamouth Roundabout and Prestons Road.
The east-west route, a major new cycle facility for
London, was largely complete by 1994. It has been planned in collaboration
with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Traffic Director for
London and includes a new cycle route along Cable Street, which parallels
The Highway, providing a direct route between Limehouse and the City.
This part of the route was funded by the Traffic Director as part of London's
first Red Route Scheme.
The complete route, which is more than 9 km long, makes
use of local roads such as Narrow Street and Poplar High Street, which
have been relieved of traffic by the new Docklands highways, including
the Limehouse Link. It also incorporates a segregated cycleway across
the River Lea as part of the Lower Lea Crossing and a number of new special
cycle crossing facilities.
In the Royal Docks the emphasis has been on providing
high quality shared pedestrian/cycle tracks. Shared facilities alongside
the docks will be particularly important.
At the time of writing almost 60 km of cycle route had
been implemented throughout the Docklands area; just over half of this
is in the form of off-street routes making them both safe and attractive
to use. Almost all of Docklands is now accessible by safe cycle routes
making the area probably the most cycle friendly part of London. A further
15 km of cycle routes are planned, most of this being off road routes
within the Royal Docks.
The completion of the new pedestrian/ cycle bridge across
the entrance to the Rotherhithe Tunnel in Limehouse will provide the vital
missing link in the east-west route by upgrading the link between Narrow
Street and Cable Street.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
12. Docklands Transport Planning: the analytical side
Large Illustrations
Figure 44: Changes in forecasts of End State Employment
(56kb)
Figure 45: Changes in forecasts of End State Households
(44kb)
Figure 46: Employment, households and visitors in
London Docklands - 1981 (64kb)
Figure 48: Employment, households and visitors in
London Docklands - End State (103kb)
Figure 49: An extract from a 1994 version of LUTE,
the land use database for Docklands (87kb)
Figure 50: Commuters to Docklands: direction of
travel by the year 2000 (21kb)
Table 7: Future Modal Split (45kb)
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Index Page
Introduction
Although is has not generally been a story of much interest
to most Docklands reporters, it is a fact that a considerable amount of
analysis has been undertaken to test, evaluate and justify the various
transport proposals described in this document. Obviously, in making a
case to spend public money, a rigorous justification is always needed,
and the modelling and transport teams at LDDC and London Transport have
borne the main responsibility for this work.
Assumptions about development patterns, land use, timing,
car and public transport use, parking, travel patterns etc, have all been
developed, tested, and constantly re-evaluated to check their validity.
This chapter gives a summary of the main issues considered.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Development patterns
Although no fixed land used plan has been prepared for
London Docklands by the LDDC, development patterns and frameworks were
established at an early stage. The build-up of employment and households
in the UDA is illustrated in Figures 46, 47
and 48. (64kb, 71kb and 103kb).
The transport network has been planned to reflect these
patterns, and to recognise the needs illustrated by Figure
48 (103kb), which shows the expected distribution of densities at
the end of the development phase, and highlights the key growth points.
The end of the development phase, or 'end state' has
generally referred to a planning horizon of about 20 to 25 years from
the year in which forecasts are made. Forecasts of household growth, however,
have generally assumed a shorter planning horizon of about 15 to 20 years.
The location of highest employment densities can be
seen to be in the Central Business District of the Isle of Dogs, whilst
the greatest attractions for visitors to shopping, leisure, and other
developments will be in the Royal Docks.
Although the basic patterns shown in Figure
48 (103kb) have been established for some time, forecasts of the actual
scale of growth have varied considerably over time. Figures 44
and 45 (56kb and 44kb) show the changes in projections
of employment and population since 1972. A key change has been the growth
in expectations for jobs in the area. It is now assumed that there could
ultimately be approximately 175,000 jobs in the Urban Development Area.
Currently (early 1997) the total is over 70,000 but many existing buildings
are not fully occupied. Interestingly, housing forecasts have remained
fairly constant at around 50,000 units.
These figures also demonstrate the difficulty of forecasting
for an area as complex and large as Docklands (comparable in size to Central
London). The capacity for jobs is considerable - but actual development
will depend on a range of demand-side factors, as discussed below.
In fact the employment forecasts made in the 1970s and
early 1980s were extremely low, and it is not at all surprising, therefore,
that schemes like the Fleet Line could not be justified.
No one at that stage believed that the potential in
Docklands was as great as the 1990 forecasts later assumed. It would therefore
have seemed to be a misuse of public money, at that stage in the 1970S,
to commit to the type of major transport infrastructure schemes which
have now been committed.
It took the inception of Canary Wharf, in 1987, to open
everyone's eyes to the possibilities, and it was only on the strength
of this that the LDDC was able to justify the commitments to the Royal
Docks road and rail network, the DLR improvements and extensions, and,
of course, the Jubilee line.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
The Land Use Data Base: land use type, density and timing
A land use data base was established in 1985 in which
the forecast short and long term uses of all the sites in Docklands were
detailed, and their expected transport characteristics quantified.
These assumptions were reviewed on a quarterly basis,
so that estimates of car ownership, parking space, density and type of
development, modal split etc, through time, could all be made as accurate
as possible.
An extract from the Docklands LUTE (Land Use Trip End)
schedule is illustrated in Figure 49 (87kb).
This land use data provided the base information for
all the modelling work done to test Docklands schemes by LDDC, London
Transport, and the Department of Transport.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Modal split: car and public transport use and parking
Each land use in Docklands, from the smallest to the
largest site, has assumptions made about it in LUTE about the likely modal
split for different types of journeys from that site. For example a small
business development in the Millharbour area, just off Millharbour Road,
will have assumptions made about the travel characteristics of its employees,
ie whether they are more likely to use bus, DLR, car, either as a commuter
or when on a business trip.
These assumptions will have taken account of the availability
of parking spaces, proximity of public transport, and Londonwide research
on transport characteristics.
Similarly, assumptions have been made about choice of
mode of travel for residents living in different parts of Docklands, taking
account of information about car ownership in different areas, public
transport quality etc.
This data, when aggregated, demonstrates that the likely
split between the use of public and private transport varies considerably
throughout the area, and of course through time, as public transport improves.
In summary, the forecast modal characteristics of the
different areas of Docklands are in Table 7 (45kb)
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Parking
LDDC controls the parking provision within new developments
by the application of parking standards through the exercise of its development
control powers.
In the early 1980s, generous provision of parking was
encouraged in the Royal Docks and Isle of Dogs, commensurate with the
early perceptions of modest public transport access
With the approval of the Canary Wharf development in
1987, in which it was assumed that modal split would be less than 15%
by car, it became necessary to review parking standards.
A set of standards was adopted which were consistent
with the modal split assumptions for a much higher level of accessibility
by public transport.
The current parking standards give different provisions
for different land use types and areas within the UDA.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Travel patterns
The travel patterns or distributions of travel which
have been used in the Docklands models are taken from the London Transport
Study (LTS) model of the whole of London which is run by the Department
of Transport.
This LTS model is at the time of writing the only source
for distribution patterns for all the analytical work which is done on
London's new road and rail schemes. The distribution patterns forecast
by LTS for London Docklands are illustrated in Figure
50 (21kb), which as might be expected shows different characteristics
for public transport patterns than for private vehicles.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
The London job market and its effect on Docklands
In forecasting employment levels for Docklands it has
been necessary to consider both supply and demand. The early forecasts,
produced in the late 1980s, were recognised in hindsight as being too
strongly 'supply-led' - they took the view not only that large quantities
of new office space would be built, but that it would be fully occupied
within two years of completion. in terms of buildings under construction
this was not wholly unrealistic, as it was reasonable to assume that developers
knew the market and letting potential. But forecasts were also required
for the ultimate or 'End State' level of employment which had to make
assumptions about the scale and timing of development of sites for which,
at the time of the forecast, there were either no schemes or only outline
planning permissions or Enterprise Zone consents. These assumptions were
inevitably more problematic.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Changes in the London office market
The problems of employment forecasting were compounded
by changes in the London office market with the number of major lettings
(of over 50,000 sq ft) declining from an average of almost 40 per year
during 1987 and 1988 to 20 per year over the period 1989 to 1993. These
demand-side factors, combined with the completion of buildings started
during the 1987 - 1988 boom, produced an unprecedented surplus of space
and necessitated a more conservative approach to employment forecasting,
taking both demand and supply factors into consideration.
The revised approach, introduced in 1990 and reviewed
each year, recognised that the different parts of Docklands are competing
for tenants in different markets. For example, the developments of Canary
Wharf and South Quay are increasingly attractive options within the Central
London office market, whereas the Royal Docks are seen primarily as a
location for large scale but lower density business park, exhibition,
retail, amenity and leisure developments. The new forecasts have attempted
to identify the 'package' features (including price, accessibility and
quality of space) which each area of Docklands has to offer and how this
compares with alternative locations - both now and in the future.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Control totals for employment growth
With the transfer of DLR ownership to the LDDC in April
1992, more importance has been placed on short term employment forecasts
in order to strengthen revenue forecasting for DLR. In the production
of these forecasts, supply side factors have continued to play an important
role. The buildings completed on the Isle of Dogs by 1994 had capacity
for some 60,000 jobs - whereas the 1992 level of employment (measured
by the biennial LDDC Employment Survey) was 25,000. The forecast produced
in early 1993 implied that the Isle of Dogs would need to capture some
6 per cent of the total take-up of space in the Central London office
market as a whole for these buildings to fill up by 2001. Similar 'control
totals' of employment growth have been forecast for each of the main sub-areas
of Docklands. A series of lags representing the delay between the completion
of a building and full occupancy are then applied to translate these area-wide
forecasts to the site specific level.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Predicting further development
The final element in the forecasting process, as mentioned
above, has been to estimate the scale, timing and take-up of not yet constructed
developments. The pipeline of planning permissions indicates the potential,
which could generate 105,000 jobs in the Isle of Dogs, Poplar and Leamouth
and 175,000 in Docklands as a whole. In recognition of market and policy
conditions, the latest forecasts reflect more housing and less commercial
development, particularly on the major dockside/riverside sites in Leamouth
and Royal Docks. The level of employment in the End State is uncertain
and, in recognition of this, the Corporation has produced a range of forecasts
for the long term.
The history of Docklands forecasts is shown in Figure
44 (56kb). These changes reflect developments in the forecasting methods
and realities of the market. London Docklands has evolved in unanticipated
ways. This process will continue and, no doubt, there are some surprises
still in store.
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
The transport and land use models and their applications
Since 1985 LDDC has maintained several forecasting tools - models -
to assist in the process of evaluating transport proposals.
These include the Docklands Public Transport Model (DPTM),
used for all strategic public transport planning, the Docklands Traffic
Model (DTM), used for all strategic road planning, and a SATURN model,
which takes outputs from DTM, and tests local road issues in more detail.
All of these models take their coordinated inputs from LUTE and LTS.
Forecast reliability
LDDC's forecasts have been updated on a regular basis,
year by year. The traffic forecasts have been validated against actual
data, drawn, for example from LDDC's cordon surveys and DLR's operational
statistics. They have also been independently audited in terms of methodology
and outputs and the forecasts calibrated accordingly. This gives LDDC
confidence in the reliability of its current forecasts, particularly in
the short to medium term.
Use of the models
The evaluation of all the Docklands schemes has been
done using these models, and they have also been made available to LT
and DoT for independent use.
They have therefore been used to evaluate a wide variety of strategic
transport schemes, including:
Public transport
DLR: Beckton Extension Lewisham Extension Service Planning
Station Design
Jubilee line
Thames Gateway Bridge
Woolwich Metro
Private transport
Docklands highways
A13 schemes
Blackwall Crossing
Lower Road
Tower Bridge/Rotherhithe Tunnel
ELRC/Thames Gateway Bridge
A13/A406 junction
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
13. Financial Investment
Schedule of Transport schemes directly serving or associated with London
Docklands and their costs.
Large
Illustrations
Figure 51: Expenditure: Committed Schemes
at March 1997
Figure 52: Proposed investment and actual expenditure
on transport in Docklands
TABLE
8: INVESTMENT PROGRAMME - March 1997 breakdown |
ROAD SCHEMES (Construction
costs) |
£m |
Complete |
| Roads
in Docklands (LDDC expenditure) |
|
|
| Limehouse Link [Note
1] |
255 |
May 1993 |
| Poplar Link |
30 |
May 1993 |
| Trafalgar Way and Westferry
Circus [Note 2] |
48 |
1990 |
| East India Dock Link [Note
3] |
48 |
May 1993 |
| Lower Lea Crossing |
43 |
Dec1991 |
| Prestons Road Improvements |
6 |
1996 |
| Other IOD Schemes |
20 |
1985 |
| Royal Docks Roads |
120
|
1990 |
|
Total
£570 |
|
| Roads
to Docklands (DoT and PFI expenditure) |
|
|
| A13 Schemes LBTH |
21 |
1996 |
| A13 DBFO Project [Note
4] (improvements at lronbridge/Canning Town, A112, A117
and Movers Lane) |
146 |
2000-2003 |
| Thames Gateway Bridge
[Note 5] |
210-250 |
2004 |
| Blackwall 3rd Crossing
[Note 6] |
138-196 |
2000-2002 |
| A13 Heathway to M25 |
228
|
1999 |
|
Total £743-841 |
|
| Other relevant DoT Schemes
not shown above include:
SWBRR, A2 Rochester Way Relief Road, Hackney Wick to M11 Link |
| Notes:
1. Contract costs including fees.
2. Westferry Circus, funded by developer. 3. Includes Prestons
Road Flyover, Does not include A13 tie-in. 4. DoT investgating
southerly alignment for A112 Scheme. 5. PFI funded scheme. 6 Proposed
PFI schemes Cost includes public transport capital com.ponent.
6. Proposed PFI funded scheme. |
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
RAIL SCHEMES (Construction costs) |
£m (approx) |
Complete |
| Docklands Light Railway |
LDDC/DLR |
LT/LUL |
Developer |
Total |
|
| Initial |
38.5 |
38.5 |
|
77 |
Aug 1987 |
| Beckton Extension
[Note 1] |
247 |
11 |
|
258 |
Mar 1994 |
| Bank Extension, upgrade contract, &
B90s [Note 2] |
|
182 |
100 |
282 |
Oct 1991 |
| SELTRAC Resignalling |
46 |
|
|
46 |
1994-1995 |
| Addititional Vehicles B92 |
24 |
|
|
24 |
1992 |
| WIQ Junction Remodelling |
12 |
|
|
12 |
April 1993 |
| Short Term Capacity Increases &
Vehicle Modifications |
5 |
|
|
5 |
1993 |
| Northern Line Link at Bank Station |
|
12 (LUL) |
|
12 |
Dec 1993 |
| Other Minor Works |
13 |
|
|
13 |
|
| 2nd Generation Software [Note
3] |
5 |
|
|
5 |
Summer 1998 |
| Lewisham Extension PFI
[Note 4] |
50
|
|
170 |
220
|
Jan 2000 |
|
£440.5 |
£243.5 |
|
Total
£954 |
|
| Underground |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jubilee Line |
2200 |
400 |
2600 |
Sept 1998 |
| East London Line Upgrading [Note
5] |
90 |
|
90 |
1998 |
| Northern extension |
|
|
80 |
2001+ |
| Southern extension |
|
|
30 |
2001+ |
|
|
|
|
|
| Woolwich Rail Tunnel [Note 6] |
75 |
110 |
185
Total £2985 |
2003+ |
|
|
|
|
| Notes: 1.
Includes escalators at Bank. 2. Includes upgrading of initial railway
and works at Canary Wharf. 3. Partially funded by original SELTRAC
contract. 4. Estimate at outturn 1999 price. 4 Includes Thames Tunnel
Relining, Canada Water Station increment. 6. Proposed PFI funded
scheme. |
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
OTHER SCHEMES |
£m (approx) |
| Riverbus [Note
1] |
10 |
| London City Airport [Note
2] |
35
|
| Notes:
1 Estimate. 2. Does not include airlines'
investment |
Total £45 |
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
SUMMARY |
|
| Roads Schemes |
£M
(approx) |
| Roads in Docklands |
570 |
| Roads to Docklands [Note
1] |
841 |
| |
subtotal
1411 |
| Rail Schemes |
|
| Docklands Light Railway |
954 |
| Underground and other rail [Note
1] |
2985 |
| |
subtotal
3939 |
| Other schemes |
subtotal 45 |
| |
TOTAL 5395 |
| Note 1: Includes
higher cost crossings at Thames Gateway, Blackwall and Woolwich |
Top of Part II
Top of Chapter
Index Page
Note by Webmaster:
Some readers will be interested to know about the progress
made in developing the transport infrastructure since the LDDC closed
its doors in 1998. There is a good summary of the various projects
completed, in progress or planned at the website of the London City Airport Consultative Committee.
|