Safety 1. How many road traffic accidents (classified as ‘serious’) occurred in each of the respective areas in each of the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018? 2. How many of these accidents involved injury to (i) cyclists and (ii) pedestrians? 3. Was any analysis made by or on behalf of TFL, and if so, when and by whom, before launching the Consultation to compare the number of accidents predicted (a) in the respective areas and (b) in the entire area involving equivalent injury to (i) cyclists and (ii) pedestrians per annum were the proposals to proceed or not? 4. If so, please produce all related documents. Traffic 5. Was any analysis made by or on behalf of TFL before launching the Consultation comparing the number of bicycle journeys predicted per hour (a) in the respective areas or (b) in the entire area were the proposals to proceed or not? 6. If so, please produce all related documents. The Consultation web site refers to the ‘Wood Lane to Notting Hill Gate Scheme – Modelling Results AM and PM.’ 7. Was any internal comment written by or on behalf of TFL referring to these Modelling Results? 8. If so, please produce all such documents. 9. Please identify all changes to street traffic directions which are proposed in the area and elsewhere as a result of the proposals. The average impact shown in the Modelling Results for ‘Other Traffic’ is to increase the West Bound time by 9-10 minutes (in addition to the current 20-30 minutes) (‘the increase’). 10. Has TFL created other models showing any greater delay to traffic beyond those shown in the disclosed Modelling Results. 11. If so, please disclose them. 12. Has TFL considered what effect the increase will have on pollution in any of the areas and anywhere adjacent? 13. If so, please produce all such documents. 14. Has TFL considered the worst case scenario of the increase, for instance on Friday afternoon and evening? 15. If so, when and in what documents? 16. If so, disclose all such documents. 17. Has TFL liaised with the Police and the Emergency Services as to their views as to the acceptability to all related documents of the increase? (If so, there is no request for TFL to disclose the relevant documents.) 18. Has TFL considered what changes will occur to traffic flows (including bicycles) in the streets adjoining the areas? 19. If so, identify the streets and disclose the documents. Contracts 20. Has TFL already entered into any contract for the execution of any work within any of the areas? 21. If so, how many contracts and for what work? Trees 22. Which trees precisely will be cut down in which of the areas were the proposals to proceed? Cost 23. What is the projected overall cost of implementing the Proposals? 24. What is their projected economic benefit?

---

TfL Ref: FOI-0700-1920

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 29 May 2019.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.  I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

Safety

1. How many road traffic accidents (classified as ‘serious’) occurred in each of the respective areas in each of the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018?

2. How many of these accidents involved injury to (i) cyclists and (ii) pedestrians?

Please find the requested information attached in the file ‘FOI Request 29.05.19 Collision summary’.

3. Was any analysis made by or on behalf of TFL, and if so, when and by whom, before launching the Consultation to compare the number of accidents predicted (a) in the respective areas and (b) in the entire area involving equivalent injury to (i) cyclists and (ii) pedestrians per annum were the proposals to proceed or not?

4. If so, please produce all related documents.

Through analysis of the collision data provided to you in response to your questions 1 and 2 above, we can pinpoint specific collision patterns; in terms of manoeuvre, vehicles involved, compliance issues and other contributory factors. This has enabled us to identify specific design interventions that can directly mitigate observed collision issues. For example, at Holland Park East, a new signalised junction and segregated cycle track are proposed to reduce the observed high collision risk between cycles moving ahead and left turning vehicles, based on previous collisions of this nature occurring in the last three years.  The proposals we presented at consultation are therefore expected to address the issues which result in collisions along the proposed route.  TfL commissioned TMS Consultancy to develop guidance to show the effectiveness in addressing collisions of a variety of highway ‘interventions’.  The guidance provides likely percentage reductions in collisions that could be achieved with different interventions.  These percentage reductions were calculated based on the collision reduction achievements of interventions applied to similar schemes across London.  Our consultation materials noted that ’These proposals would provide a safer and more pleasant environment for walking and cycling’ both because the proposals had been designed in direct response to the collision patterns we had observed, and also on the basis that these same measures had proven effective in addressing collision patterns when used elsewhere in London.

We have carried out further analysis of the projection of savings in injuries to cyclists, pedestrians and other road users, if the scheme were to be implemented.  The three year collision data (1 April 2015 to 31 March 2018) was reviewed to identify collisions and ‘clusters’ prior to consultation, however, the analysis of the projection of savings was not carried out until after the public consultation had started.

Collisions involving pedestrians and cycles account for an average of 78% of all KSIs (killed or seriously injured) and 47% of all collisions across the four neighbourhoods. Collisions involving pedestrians are above the Greater London average (21.3%) in Shepherd’s Bush Green (25.5%) and Notting Hill Gate (37.5%); while collisions involving cycles are above the Greater London average (19.9%) in all four neighbourhoods (Wood Lane = 20.5%, Shepherd’s Bush Green = 20.6%, Holland Park Avenue = 32.3%, Notting Hill Gate = 23.2%). Collisions involving pedestrians and cycles accounted for 48% of all collisions on Holland Park Avenue and 59% on Notting Hill Gate. There was also a fatal collision involving a pedestrian and a bus on Shepherd’s Bush Green in 2015, and a fatal collision involving a cycle and HGV in 2009.

Based on guidance developed independently of TfL, we have calculated the possible personal injury collision savings that could be achieved through implementing our proposals. These are not limited to collisions involving cycles or pedestrians, and account for savings related to any mitigation measure for all road users. This guidance provides likely percentage reductions in collisions that could be achieved with different levels of highway interventions. These percentage reductions were calculated based on the collision reduction achievements of interventions applied to similar schemes across London.

In summary, we calculated that a total of 49 personal injury collisions could be prevented throughout the areas relevant to our proposals. This is as a consequence of proposed design interventions that seek to directly address analysed collision patterns; for example, providing a new pedestrian crossing at a location where collisions involving pedestrians account for a significant proportion of all collisions at that location, or altering the junction design to mitigate collisions involving turning vehicles. As a result, the number of personal injury collisions targeted is lower than the overall number of collisions that have occurred during the study period, as our proposals may not address certain collisions where other factors are involved, such as human error or road conditions.

	Wood Lane	Shepherd’s Bush Green	Holland Park Avenue	Notting Hill Gate	Whole Route
Total No. of Collisions	73	102	62	56	293
Total No. of Collisions Targeted for Reduction	21	37	34	30	122
Total No. of Collisions Predicted to be Saved	8	13	16	12	49
Estimated Collision Reduction (Targeted Collisions Only)	37.6%	35.5%	47.1%	47.8%	40.5%

Traffic

5. Was any analysis made by or on behalf of TFL before launching the Consultation comparing the number of bicycle journeys predicted per hour (a) in the respective areas or (b) in the entire area were the proposals to proceed or not?

6. If so, please produce all related documents.

Modelling data was used to project cycle flows (with and without the scheme) and additional cycling trips generated in the area as a result of the scheme.

7. Was any internal comment written by or on behalf of TFL referring to these Modelling Results?

8. If so, please produce all such documents.

TfL analyses the modelling results to understand the reasoning for the journey time changes.  The following documents which are attached contain all of the ‘internal comment’ made by or on behalf of TfL:

• ‘CoW Modelling slides’ – Journey time heat maps and corresponding commentary

   

• ‘CS10 Briefing 060619’ – Presentation on the designs and the reasoning for journey time results

   

•  ‘CS10 July 2018 Results_v9_final’  – Modelling results table with commentary on the journey time changes

   

• ‘CS10 NARRATIVE– Written narrative on Journey time results

   

• ‘CS10 TECHNICAL EXP’ – Technical explanation of journey time results

   

• ‘LBHF modelling slides_110319’  – Journey time heat maps and corresponding commentary

   

• ‘RBKC modelling slides_070319’ – Journey time heat maps and corresponding commentary

   

• ‘Wood Lane to Notting Hill Gate Improvements Technical Summary’ – Technical summary of designs and corresponding journey time results.

Please note, the date included in some of the document titles refer to the first time that the document was created, but refer to the data and content created more recently from design, analysis and modelling that was undertaken ahead of the start of public consultation. 

9. Please identify all changes to street traffic directions which are proposed in the area and elsewhere as a result of the proposals.

This is provided in the attached file ‘HPA – HNG – RB K&C – Movement changes’.

10. Has TFL created other models showing any greater delay to traffic beyond those shown in the disclosed Modelling Results.

11. If so, please disclose them.

No other models have been created other than those provided within our consultation.  Therefore, we hold no additional documents.

12. Has TFL considered what effect the increase will have on pollution in any of the areas and anywhere adjacent?

13. If so, please produce all such documents.

14. Has TFL considered the worst case scenario of the increase, for instance on Friday afternoon and evening?

15. If so, when and in what documents?

16. If so, disclose all such documents.

In response to questions 12 & 13, 15 - 16, we are undertaking environmental evaluations of the scheme proposals, including Air Quality and Noise modelling which will be based on traffic modelling results for the ‘future base’: this is a future year model (2021) which takes into account growth assumptions and network changes to forecast the number and distribution of vehicle trips. The results of this modelling will be provided as part of our response to the issues raised by respondents to the consultation, later in the year. As this is still work in progress there are no documents to provide yet.

In response to question 14, specific scenarios, such as Friday afternoon or evening, have not been modelled. TfL’s traffic modelling process assesses the typical morning and evening peak periods. The base models in this process are validated against real on street data to ensure they are an accurate reflection of existing journey times. This process allows us to predict the journey time changes that would typically occur as a result of proposed road layout changes.

17. Has TFL liaised with the Police and the Emergency Services as to their views as to the acceptability to all related documents of the increase?

Amongst others, we contacted the Metropolitan Police, relevant Safer Transport Teams (specifically, the Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow, Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea Safer Transport Teams), London Ambulance Service, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and London Fire Brigade by email at the start of the consultation to provide a link to our online consultation materials and invite each organisation to submit their views of the proposals and their impacts to us.  No information has been provided to these organisations that have not also been published on our consultation website.

18. Has TFL considered what changes will occur to traffic flows (including bicycles) in the streets adjoining the areas?

19. If so, identify the streets and disclose the documents.

TfL has considered the change in traffic flows as a result of the proposals. The information containing this data is in the following documents:

• ‘CS10 Reassignment Analysis_17052019_v5b’ – Presentation showing the predicted traffic reassignment as a result of the proposals. This shows the overall effect on slides 5 and 6. Slide 7 explains the information on the subsequent slide. 

   

• ‘CS10 Total Link Flow Difference Analysis’ – Show total flow difference as a result of the proposals.

Please note, the date included in some of the document titles refer to the first time that the document was created, but refer to the data and content created more recently from design, analysis and modelling that was undertaken ahead of the start of public consultation. 

20. Has TFL already entered into any contract for the execution of any work within any of the areas?

21. If so, how many contracts and for what work?

No contract has been entered into for the execution of the works.

22. Which trees precisely will be cut down in which of the areas were the proposals to proceed?

The project proposes to remove one tree in Wood Lane, two mature Plane trees and one sapling in Holland Park Avenue and 23 trees from the central reservation in Notting Hill Gate. The locations of those trees we proposed to remove are clearly marked in our consultation plans. 

23. What is the projected overall cost of implementing the Proposals?

The entire project cost, including development and delivery of the proposals between Wood Lane and Notting Hill Gate, is estimated at £42m. Clearly the final delivery cost will be informed by any changes to the proposals we make as a result of the consultation.

24. What is their projected economic benefit?

Using DfT tools for business case appraisal the benefit/cost value of this scheme has been calculated to be 4.47 : 1, latest calculation based on monetised ambience and health benefits generated by the scheme and final journey time modelling data received January 2019.

You will know that the deadline for responses to our consultation was 16 June.  Although we have noted your objection to the proposals as you requested, we would like to offer you until midnight Tuesday 2 July to submit a further response, should you wish to do that in the light of the information provided in this letter. 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Attachments

Back to top

---