TfL paid Mott MacDonald a lot of money to produce the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study. I've added up over £300K. There is a version of the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study published on Southwark Council's website. It is 233 pages long and has this reference: 381801 | 04 | A | December 2018 381801_CW_STS_Forecasting_Report_v6_Final.docx https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy-and-transport-policy/evidence-base/transport 1.) Please can you inform me if this is a summary? Is there is another longer version of the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study? If so, please can you send me a copy? 2.) In the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study available to the public via Southwark's website there is no calibration or validation report. Do you have any calibration or validation report for the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study? I would expect to see an appendix with traffic counts of something like that. Documents that practice the TfL Traffic Modelling Guideline / Model Auditing Process. 3.) Section 11.2 informs us that "through further assessment of each option using flow and delay differences, it was decided that option 2 was the best performing design and also addressed both TfL and LBS policies of introducing cycle superhighway 4 and a Lower Road gyratory re-structure respectively" Do you know who made this decision? Mott MacDonald? TfL & Southwark Council jointly? This is very important because Figure 89 Option 1 of the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study shows my road in green which complies with the Canada Water Area Action Plan Policy 8 and objective to reduce motor traffic in Rotherhithe Old Road. However, Figure 94 Option 2 show my road flipped into severe read and an outcome that is not compliant with Canada Water Area Action Plan and many other policies of the EU / Government, Mayor of London and Southwark Council. I do not understand why key AAP policy and objective was not made a key focus of this expensive study. Didn't Mott MacDonald start by reading the relevant policies?

---

TfL Ref: FOI-1949-1920

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 27 September 2019.

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

1.) Please can you inform me if this is a summary? Is there is another longer version of the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study? If so, please can you send me a copy?

The Strategic Transport study published on the London Borough of Southwark’s website is not a summary and no longer version is available.

2.) In the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study available to the public via Southwark's website there is no calibration or validation report. Do you have any calibration or validation report for the Canada Water Strategic Transport Study? I would expect to see an appendix with traffic counts of something like that. Documents that practice the TfL Traffic Modelling Guideline / Model Auditing Process.

The local area model validation reports prepared for the highway and public transport assignment models are attached.

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under Data Protection legislation some personal data has been removed, as required by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions which would make the processing ‘fair’.

This exemption to the right of access to information is an absolute exemption and not subject to an assessment of whether the public interest favours use of the exemption.

3.) Section 11.2 informs us that "through further assessment of each option using flow and delay differences, it was decided that option 2 was the best performing design and also addressed both TfL and LBS policies of introducing cycle superhighway 4 and a Lower Road gyratory re-structure respectively" Do you know who made this decision? Mott MacDonald? TfL & Southwark Council jointly?

The council with TfL have undertaken extensive design and modelling of the Local highway network to support changes to the Lower Road gyratory system which has recently been the subject of public consultation.  Further supporting materials on this are available on the council’s website.

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

---