Written evidence submitted by Transport for London (TfL) (URB0093)

House of Commons Transport Committee

Urban Congestion

Written evidence from Transport for London

1.1.             We welcome the opportunity, as the Mayor of London’s integrated local transport authority, to contribute evidence to this inquiry. Our purpose is to deliver the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and to keep London moving, working and growing and to make life in London better.

1.2.            Our public transport responsibilities include London Underground, London Buses, Docklands Light Rail, London Overground, TfL Rail, London Trams, London River Services, Dial-a-Ride, Victoria Coach Station, Santander Cycles and the Emirates Air Line.

1.3.             On the road network, we are the strategic traffic authority for London overseeing the operation of the Capital’s Strategic Road Network. We directly manage the city’s 580km red route network, operate all of the Capital’s 6,300 traffic signals, fund local borough highway renewal and enhancement work, regulate taxis and the private hire trade, run the Congestion Charging scheme, and work to ensure a safe environment for all road users.

1.4.            At over 8.6 million residents, London’s population is now larger than it has ever been; and is set to reach 10 million by 2030.  Congestion costs London’s economy an estimated £5bn a year.[1]  Around 75 per cent of that congestion can be attributed to more demand (particularly at peak times) than the road network is capable of accommodating. The remaining 25 per cent is generally due to a specific incident or event (see figure 1 in Appendix A). Any strategy to tackle congestion must therefore address overall demand as well as the physical operation of the road network itself.

1.5.            In order to address the opportunities and challenges presented by this growth, we promote the use of more sustainable forms of transport which are more space efficient than private vehicles and support higher levels of people movement on limited road space. We have invested significantly in public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure, which has resulted in a considerable move away from private car use and enabled more efficient movement of people and goods on the Capital’s limited road space.

1.6.            More than 2.3 billion passenger journeys are made on buses each year in London, accounting for more than half of the bus trips that take place in the UK.  Buses are the most used form of public transport in the Capital and around 96 per cent of residents live within 400 metres of a bus stop. The need to ensure the network’s operational efficiency and reliability, through bus priority measures, is more pressing now than ever.  

1.7.             By 2030 it is estimated that there will be an extra five million trips a day on the roads. Current initiatives to limit congestion are not enough to maintain an efficient road network into the future. There is a clear policy direction to encourage a shift to more efficient modes.

1.8.            For example, buses only take up 11 per cent of road space but make up almost 60 per cent of distance travelled by people on central London roads. Every day over 360,000 cars, PHVs and taxis enter central London and take up 52 per cent of road space, despite only carrying people for 19 per cent of the total distance travelled by road (figure 2, Appendix A). Many of these journeys are often non-essential and under-occupied.

1.9.            Cycling and walking infrastructure also plays an important role in supporting sustainable methods of transport. Our new ‘Healthy Streets’ approach is integral to our strategy of reducing traffic. This work will make the city safer and more attractive for pedestrians and cyclists, while the resulting improved urban realm is also good for business.

1.10.        Congestion in urban areas can also be eased by using road space for different priorities at different times of day, recognising the complex and multi-functional nature of city streets.  In central London for example, non-essential traffic is discouraged in the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) when demand for road space is highest. Similarly, we work with the freight industry and boroughs to encourage the rescheduling of freight trips to off-peak times.  Emerging technologies will also assist in this transition to a more intelligent and responsive use of road space. 

1.11.         This consolidated approach to tackling congestion is outlined in the Mayor’s Roads Reliability Plan, which includes a series of measures aimed at improving reliability for all road users.  The immediate steps we are taking include the use of new and improved strategic management, technology and communication to directly tackle the problem of congestion in London.  Under the Plan, we are working to further:

• Manage the excess demand for London’s roads, for example by more use of Active Travel Management tools to alleviate and manage congestion away from vital parts of the road network  
• Improve communication with road users to allow people to make more effective decisions about their journeys based on the most accurate and up-to-date information
• Ensure  the infrastructure that supports the road network, including traffic signals and road surfaces, is reliable, faults are minimised and repairs are carried out more quickly
• Improve collaboration with local authorities, utility companies and developers to reduce the impact of planned road works and unplanned incidents.

1.12.        The Mayor’s Transport Strategy, due to be published for consultation in spring 2017, will set out a longer-term approach to reducing car dependency and enabling a shift to more walking, cycling and public transport use. It will aim to encourage people to use these more efficient forms of transport by ensuring that they are the most attractive choice. It will also look at measures that manage demand and use street space flexibly; and measures such as the Ultra Low Emission Zone and the Emissions Surcharge in central London will help to reduce the wider environmental impacts of driving by encouraging the uptake of cleaner vehicles. We are also looking at ways to more effectively manage the movement of essential services and freight, and deliveries.

1.13.         The information in Appendix B responds to the specific points in the Committee’s terms of reference for this inquiry.

January 2017

Appendix A

Figure 1- Causes of congestion on the network

Figure 2- Relative Road Space used and Distance Travelled by mode in Central London

Appendix B – responding to the points in the inquiry terms of reference

1. Bus priority measures

1.1.             Bus services in London are tendered to private companies which operate bus routes on our behalf. As part of this, we specify the start and finish points, routeing, frequency and operating times of London bus services and set the performance standards required. Our tendering and contracting arrangements are outlined in our written evidence to the Committee’s recent Bus Services Bill inquiry.[2]
 

1.2.            Increasing congestion has made it harder to operate services reliably. Buses provide an important alternative to the private car in many areas. However their ability to further reduce private car use can be restricted by journey time and reliability. It is therefore essential to protect bus reliability in order to encourage people to use them instead.

1.3.             Bus priority measures, such as bus lanes, bus gates and traffic signal phases, are a cost-effective way of managing limited road space and encouraging the use of public transport.

1.4.            Targeted bus priority investment is an internationally proven approach to address increasing delays on the road network, and to ensure that buses continue to be an efficient and attractive choice for travel. The merits include improvements to bus reliability, faster journey times, smaller variations in operating costs and increasing the attractiveness of bus travel, while reducing the number of vehicles required to operate the same frequency of service.

1.5.            We have targeted our investment on routes which will be most affected by changes to the road network in central London, as well as those impacted by a lack of reliability and where demand is expected to increase due to population growth.

1.6.            As part of our Bus Priority Programme, we invested £8m in developing and delivering over 70 bus priority schemes in 2015/16. In the current financial year a further £13m is being invested to double the number of schemes. We expect to deliver a significant programme of 148 bus priority schemes during this financial year, all of which contribute to the target of saving 100 minutes of bus journey time across the network. To reduce the impact of congestion and its effect on bus reliability, we will invest £50m in bus priority investment by the end of 2018/19.

1.7.             The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of each priority scheme is calculated using benefits such as journey time improvements (and therefore passenger benefits) and bus operational costs. Journey time savings are usually estimated on the basis of traffic modelling, while origin and destination data helps to determine the number of passengers likely to benefit from bus priority schemes.

1.8.            As an example, the Queenstown Road Bus Priority Scheme, which was delivered in 2015, resulted in a financially positive BCR purely from bus operating savings, due to a time saving of 1.5 minute saved per bus in each direction, without the addition of passenger journey time benefits.

2. Road user charging

2.1.            Road user charging can be an effective part of an integrated strategy to encourage people to use public transport or active travel rather than the car.

Congestion Charging

2.2.            In London, road user charging exists in the form of tolls and the central London congestion charging zone (CCZ) . The Congestion Charge has been successful in reducing traffic volumes in central London since its introduction in 2003.

2.3.            It is a well-understood and recognised scheme with compliance levels of around 98 per cent and customer satisfaction of 86 per cent. The Charge had an immediate impact on traffic in the Zone, which fell by 18 per cent during weekday charging hours and circulating traffic reduced by 15 per cent.[3]  As a result, congestion in the CCZ reduced by around 30 per cent.

2.4.            All revenue from the Charge, £1.6 bn net over the past 13 years, is reinvested by us to run and improve services.

2.5.            Although we have seen an increase in the number of vans, construction vehicles and private hire vehicles, overall traffic levels in the CCZ have fallen since its introduction. Despite this, congestion levels in the CCZ returned to similar levels seen before the scheme as a consequence of works to provide more road space for walking and cycling and improvements to public transport, urban realm and road safety. However, without the Charge, congestion in central London would be worse.

Low Emission Zone, Ultra Low Emission Zone and Emissions Surcharge

2.6.           The Low Emission Zone (LEZ) encourages the use of cleaner vehicles, as will the planned Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), and Emissions Surcharge in central London. However, these are not demand management tools and instead encourage drivers to use lower emission vehicles by levying a charge for those that exceed the set emissions standard.

2.7.            While congestion reduction is not an explicit objective of our air quality proposals, there may be some reduction in vehicle use. We estimate that by 2020 we could see a five per cent reduction in kilometres travelled by cars within the ULEZ, although this would be unlikely to be sustained over time as more vehicles become compliant. The Mayor has announced his intention, subject to consultation, to expand the ULEZ. We will estimate the extent to which the Zone reduces vehicle trips as this policy develops.

2.8.            The Mayor’s proposal to introduce a £10 Emissions Surcharge on the most polluting vehicles entering central London is expected to have an important impact on reducing congestion in addition to reducing air pollution.

Tolls

2.9.           Tolls can help to fund new infrastructure as well as managing demand. For example, the planned tolls at Blackwall Tunnel and the proposed Silvertown Tunnel will be set at a level to deter additional traffic. Benefits of tolling include:

• Managing demand: without this, the benefits of shorter journey times will be lost to increased traffic
• Managing the type of demand: a toll can be designed to incentivise the use of certain types of vehicles, such as cleaner vehicles, or to re-time journeys.

3. Enforcement

Road and Transport Enforcement Officers (RTEOs)

3.1.             Our RTEOs started to patrol London’s streets in August 2015. One of the reasons for establishing this team of uniformed officers was to reduce congestion, particularly where there are roadworks. Since May 2016 there have been 80 officers in place.

3.2.            RTEOs respond to situations such as: roadworks, collisions, weather conditions and major events. They are trained to safely manage situations on the roads using their powers to stop and direct vehicles, issue fines for cycling on footpaths and to demand details of those responsible for antisocial behaviour.

3.3.             Since November 2015, these officers have been deployed to key traffic routes across London to crack-down on illegal or inconsiderate behaviour and other problems that cause congestion. They have helped to deal with issues such as illegal stopping or unloading of deliveries, which can cause delays to drivers and bus passengers. Deployment locations are reviewed every four weeks to ensure they are placed at the most vulnerable parts of the network.

3.4.            The team are alerted to the build-up of congestion both through our network of traffic cameras and through using the 'eyes and ears' of the almost 25,000 bus drivers who call in any issues to our control room.  In addition, they work with businesses along the routes to help improve the way they receive and manage deliveries, giving advice on re-timing or consolidation to reduce the impact of deliveries during peak times.

Camera enforcement

3.5.            We continue to enforce against traffic contraventions that have the potential to adversely impact on traffic flow in London. Last year (2015/16) our camera operatives issued 115,210 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for moving traffic violations such as banned turns and stopping in yellow box junctions. A further 8,462 PCNs were issued to drivers for using bus lanes.

4. Parking schemes, including workplace parking levies

Parking

4.1.            The relationship between parking provision, car ownership and car use is complex.  However, evidence shows that in London, car ownership is generally higher in areas with greater parking provision and car owners are more likely to travel by car at any time of the day.[4]

4.2.            Managing parking can help to reduce car traffic and congestion. Reducing parking provision is more appropriate in areas where good alternatives are available, including public transport, walking and cycling facilities and this is reflected in our approach to parking provision.
 

4.3.            The London Plan sets out maximum parking standards for various land uses. These are linked to location, as well as access to public transport.
 

4.4.           Controlled parking zones are an effective tool for managing on-street parking and can help reduce traffic levels.
 

4.5.            Minimum cycle parking standards in the London Plan (and individual boroughs’ planning frameworks) enable residents to have access to a secure, convenient cycle parking space near their home, making cycling a more attractive and convenient choice. 

4.6.           No or low parking provision could result in quieter roads that are more welcoming and safe for pedestrians and cyclists and could encourage further shifts away from the car.
 

Workplace Parking Levies

4.7.            Workplace Parking Levies (WPL) can help tackle congestion by promoting sustainable transport, while providing a source of revenue for funding public transport.

4.8.           Nottingham is currently the only European city that has introduced a levy and at present there are no current plans to introduce WPLs in London.

4.9.           In London, the number of people commuting by car, particularly to central London and Canary Wharf, tends to be low. Therefore, a WPL would not have significant impacts on congestion in these areas.

4.10.        While a WPL could in theory be more effective in outer London, where more people commute by car, in the absence of extra investment in public transport and cycling / walking links a levy could affect access to employment.

5. Cycling and walking infrastructure

5.1.            Cycling is an increasingly popular form of transport in London, accounting for 645,000 trips a day. This is nearly as many daily trips as made on London Overground and the Docklands Light Railway combined. We have a target for 1.5 million journeys by bike a day by 2026.

5.2.            London also enjoys high levels of walking with over six million ‘walk-all-the-way’ trips made on an average day, representing 24 per cent of trips. Walking is also very important as part of longer, multi-modal trips in the Capital, with approximately 17 million walked ‘journey stages’ (shorter parts of a longer journey) taking place every a day.

5.3.            There is significant potential to increase the number of journeys that are walked and cycled in London, including switching short car trips to walking and cycling. Over one third of all the car trips made by London residents are less than 2km.

5.4.            The provision of safe, accessible and attractive streets is essential to creating conditions in which people will choose to walk and cycle.

5.5.            We have invested in high quality Cycle Superhighway (CS) routes across the Capital, running from outer London into and across central London which provide safer, faster and more direct journeys around the Capital. We have also invested in Quietways, which are a network of radial and orbital cycle routes throughout London to encourage cycling on less busy roads. Other cycling initiatives include the Mini-Hollands programme which has given three outer London boroughs - Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest - the funding to transform local cycling facilities.

5.6.            Initial findings into the road-space efficiency of the East-West and North-South CS routes suggest that the new infrastructure carries on average 46 per cent of traffic along the route at key locations, despite occupying only 30 per cent of the road-space. It is estimated that the East-West and North-South corridors are now able to carry 18 per cent more people per hour than they could without cycle lanes.

5.7.            The North-South route carries over 2,000 cyclists northbound between 08:00 and 09:00 in the peak hour - far exceeding the capacity of a general traffic lane. This is in addition to over 3,200 people who on an average day travel north across the bridge on foot between 08:00 and 09:00. Two weeks after opening, the East-West and North-South corridors were already moving five per cent more people per hour than they could without cycle lanes, a number that will increase as the new facilities attract more cyclists.

5.8.            Blackfriars Bridge provides a good case study of ‘people movement’ in a dense congested urban environment where both the cycle lane and main carriageway are at capacity at peak times. As data from the initial monitoring programme shows, the cycle lane is able to move five times as many people as the general traffic lane on the main carriageway. Since the cycle lanes were introduced, the corridor is moving five per cent more people northbound and 15 per cent more people southbound, significantly increasing the total capacity.

5.9.            A vital element of easing congestion is encouraging more people to walk or cycle rather than travel using private vehicles. Fear of injury is a leading reason people give for not walking or cycling and one that parents give for restricting the independent mobility of their children. Therefore addressing the fear of road danger is an important element of tackling congestion. This must be done as part of a programme to reduce the risk of being killed or seriously injured on the roads.

5.10.        Of the 2,092 people who were fatally or seriously injured on London’s roads in 2015, 53 per cent were pedestrians or cyclists. Walking accounted for around a quarter of journeys, but almost half of all road fatalities were pedestrians. Cycling accounted for around three per cent of journeys, but nearly twenty per cent of all those seriously injured on the roads were cyclists. Our wide-ranging road safety programme is designed to address the risks faced by these road users who are travelling in ways that ease congestion (among other benefits), but that are also more vulnerable.

5.11.         Research shows that just over a quarter of incident-related congestion in London is caused by collisions. Therefore, addressing the factors that lead to collisions is also an important part of tackling congestion.

5.12.        Cycling and walking are cost-effective forms of transport, both as an investment for public bodies and as a form of transport for individuals. A diverse range of benefits will be realised through investment in these areas. This includes increased quality of life, wider health benefits beyond those that can be monetised using the Health Economic Assessment Tool, as well as business, environmental, public realm and transport benefits.

5.13.         It is difficult to monetise some of these benefits through standard methods, but those that can be monetised indicate substantial value for money. For example, the current overall BCR for the cycling portfolio, using a number of conservative assumptions, is 2.9:1, demonstrating its high value for money. The benefits and disbenefits used to calculate the BCR of 2.9:1 are:
 

• Journey time: savings from changing from motorised transport (car/bus/rail/taxi) to bike
• Journey time: road users’ additional congestion-related journey time (dis-benefit)
• Safety: number of people Killed or Seriously Injured (disbenefit)
• Vehicle operating costs avoided (private modes)
• Health: reduced mortality
• Reduced absenteeism
• Other congestion-related disbenefits
• Urban realm

6. Freight

6.1.            In urban areas like London, efficient freight activity - the delivery of goods and services to businesses, public institutions, construction sites or homes - supports the growth and sustainability of the economy.

6.2.           Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and vans make up 17 per cent of London’s overall traffic and 28 per cent in central London during the morning peak. Up to 80 per cent of freight road kms are completed by vans and 20 per cent by HGVs. 89 per cent of London’s freight is moved by road (six per cent by river, five per cent by rail).

6.3.            By 2031, we forecast that trips made by vans will rise by 26 per cent. This represents 77 per cent of the total growth in vehicle trips forecast for London as a whole. Over the same period, the number of HGV kms is forecast to stay the same. This mirrors the actual changes we have seen over recent years – i.e. significant growth in vans, while HGV use remains stable.

6.4.           Measures to reduce the impact of freight on congestion need to strike a balance between economic need and mitigation of its impact. This requires all parties in the freight supply chain to act in a consistent and coordinated way. To achieve that, we have developed a three-pronged approach to managing freight better as a common goal that can be applied to any part of the supply chain.

6.5.            First, this approach looks to minimise the number of freight trips made by road and the distance travelled. This delivers the largest benefit, as the safest, cleanest and least congesting trip is the one that does not happen. However, it is also the hardest to achieve, requiring substantial changes in behaviour and/or new infrastructure.

6.6.           Second, it attempts to match freight demand to where there is less stress on the road network; shifting freight trips to times and places where there is more road space, and ensuring the impact of loading at the kerbside can be accommodated.

6.7.            Finally, we need to mitigate the impact of each trip that is still made. Regardless of where or when a freight trip happens, each delivery needs to be in the safest and cleanest vehicle, with an appropriately trained driver.

7. Street-running tram and trolley bus systems

7.1.             Our trams in south London are an integral part of the public transport system providing local links and playing a more strategic role in connecting residents to the wider public transport network.  Plans are being developed to provide more capacity to meet the rapidly growing demand for tram services. We are also working with boroughs to explore the case for extending the existing network.

7.2.            Our fleet of conventional bus vehicles offers the prospect of zero-emission public transport without the scale of capital costs associated with on-street fixed power infrastructure required for trolley bus operation. Other zero-emission-tailpipe options, like hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles and the current generation of pure-electric buses can either be charged at garages with less extensive fixed infrastructure or fuelled in a similar way to diesel.

8. Technological innovations such as intelligent transport systems and telematics

8.1.            Technology can enhance the performance of the road network. We have a suite of systems that help us manage and reduce urban road traffic congestion. For example:

• Surface Intelligent Transport System: this enables faster, automated response to live road conditions to reduce delays.

• Real-Time Origin Destination Analysis Tool: this helps us to understand changes in traffic flows by vehicle type across Greater London, including buses, as they enter central London. It builds on current camera and sensor infrastructure across London’s road network and allows control centre operators to respond to traffic flow changes before they become an acute congestion problem.

• Differential (iBus) Bus Priority: we have been trialling an upgrade to the system we have already installed at signal junctions to give buses priority. Selective priority for specific buses could improve overall bus journey time reliability and improve road junction efficiency.

• Pedestrian Call Cancel: we have started to introduce some of the latest pedestrian detection technology allowing the green man time to be cancelled if the pedestrian has already crossed the road. This reduces unnecessary vehicle stops but can also help reduce overall wait times for pedestrians.

• Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Tool (SCOOT): this is an automated, intelligent traffic signal control system that can dynamically change signal timings to best suit prevailing traffic conditions, reduce stops and delays and improve traffic flow. SCOOT has been proved to reduce delays by an average of 13 per cent and is now installed at around 70 per cent of London’s traffic signals.

• Cycle SCOOT: this uses radar technology at junctions with segregated cycle lanes allowing the green time to be extended by SCOOT when the cycle demand is high.

• Pedestrian SCOOT: this uses detection to extend the green man time when pedestrian demand is high.

• Signal Timing Review Programme: the programme allows traffic signal engineers to review groups of traffic signals in close proximity. The review allows the technology used at junctions to be set up based on the time of day and we review approximately 1,000 of our 6,300 junctions each year.

8.2.            The role of technological innovations such as intelligent transport systems (ITS) and telematics, including the emergence of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is significant for transport.[5] As stated in ‘A City for All Londoners’, where the Mayor outlines his plans to create a better city, we need to ensure that our investment plans can adapt to technological changes, and explore and understand the opportunities they present.

8.3.            It will be important to ensure that business models for deployment of AVs do not detract from the stated objectives of promoting walking, cycling and public transport, and work alongside these to enhance mobility in the Capital.

8.4.           This is particularly important as the emergence of AVs could disrupt the traditional patterns of private car ownership and use. There is the possibility that where private car use remains high, innovative autonomous options can be developed or even shaped to promote shared use instead of low-occupancy or individual trips, with vehicles that are ultra-low or zero-emission. This could in turn help deliver transport and wider objectives, including tackling poor air quality and congestion.

8.5.            ITS has a significant role to play in the development of AVs , including through the provision of better connectivity and sensing data, predictive analytics and the emergence of artificial intelligence. However, the various steps on the way towards this – such as the data and information derived from telematics solutions and connected vehicles, or the application of advanced driver assistance systems to improve road safety – are also potentially important in their own right.

8.6.           We have an agreed Technology and Data Strategy, with a long and progressive track record of promoting open data and exploiting technology for effective management of the transport system, including for better network management. The connected aspect of future vehicle technologies offer significant opportunities in this regard. We see the potential of telematics and new data streams that could help optimise road space management, monitor and manage air quality, provide better information to users, improve asset management and help identify, respond to and prevent incidents.

8.7.            We recently signed a Connected Citizen Programme partnership with Waze, a smartphone app which provides roads navigation and realtime disruption information, under which we will share our open data to enhance the information provided to customers. This will encourage drivers to plan their journeys and avoid congested areas. 

8.8.           Waze is using our Traffic Information Management System (TIMS) data for its mapping tool for planned events. For example, it has added the Tower Bridge closure, Upper Holloway Bridge works and the Remembrance Sunday event to their Major Traffic Events. For Tower Bridge, it sent more than 64,500 targeted notifications to users affected by the closure.

8.9.           We are also working with Waze to integrate real-time TIMS data into its feed. Once this work is complete, drivers will have the most up-to-date traffic information available to them with which to make informed decisions on their journey and enable them to plan for known disruptions.

8.10.        Furthermore, when a report of an incident on the network is made by Waze app users, our London Streets Traffic Control Centre (part of the Surface Transport and Traffic Operations Centre mentioned below) is able to investigate the report and take any necessary action to mitigate the disruption.

8.11.        London is a major venue for sporting events and protests which impact upon road space availability and therefore congestion. We work with other agencies and local authorities to minimise the impact of such events.

8.12.        Our Surface Transport and Traffic Operations Centre has the ability to implement real-time command structures to address the impact of unplanned and/or unforeseen events and incidents, bringing together our resources to provide a consolidated response and, if necessary, work as part of the agreed London Emergency Services Liaison Panel structures.

8.13.        Our Travel Demand Management Team work in close liaison with event organisers to ensure the public are aware of the potential impacts of major events and are sufficiently informed to make alternative travel decisions to avoid areas of possible additional congestion. This has been effective in reducing background demand and mitigating event impacts.

8.14.        Close liaison with event organisers ensures quick decisions can be made to use business as usual measures including bus diversions, traffic signal control and social media messaging to address developing and potential points of additional congestion.
 

9. Managing disruption to local communities and businesses during construction and operation

9.1.            Through our Lane Rental Scheme and London Permit Scheme we incentivise roadworks in order to lessen the impact on sensitive locations at busy times of the day. This helps manage the effect on local communities and businesses in the surrounding area.

9.2.           For areas where there are multiple works being planned, stakeholder working groups are in place with local businesses to ensure that a coordinated approach is adopted.

9.3.            We undertake extensive engagement with residents and businesses during construction to keep our stakeholders fully informed. Communication typically includes:

• Letter updates
• Leaflet updates
• Stakeholder email updates
• Face-to-face engagement via the project’s Public Liaison Officer
• Webpage/social media/Radio coverage
• Engagement by our Travel Ambassadors

9.4.           Our long-term approach for improving the coordination of works focuses on setting up a Long-Term Infrastructure Group including London Councils and utility companies. The group will develop a pan-London utility infrastructure plan, coordinated with major developments, such as Brent Cross and HS2. This will feed into a longer term strategy to manage roadworks in London and the impacts works will have on the local communities and businesses during the construction phase.

1