the jubilee line extension impact study main findings and lessons for future a

© Association for European Transport 2004

THE JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION IMPACT STUDY: MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNT

Peter Jones, Tim Eyers

University of Westminster Julia Bray, Neil Georgeson

Transport for London Tim Powell, Jon Paris, Rob Lane

JLEIS Consultants 1 INTRODUCTION The Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) started operations in the autumn of 1999 running from Green Park to Stratford and was the first significant addition to the London Underground network since the completion of the original Jubilee Line 20 years earlier (Figure 1). Figure 1: Route of the Jubilee Line Extension

The primary aim of the JLE was to assist in the regeneration of Docklands. This was to be achieved by improving accessibility to the area, overcoming the capacity restraints of the Docklands Light Rail System (DLR) and, in terms of image, putting the area firmly on London’s rail network. A number of more specific benefits were anticipated. These included: four additional river crossings (thereby helping to reduce the barrier of the River


Thames); improving access to inner city areas, unlocking one of Europe’s largest potential development areas; attracting inward investment; expanding London’s commercial centre; reducing unemployment; re-invigorating local communities and eliminating derelict wastelands. Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport funded a study starting in 1997 to measure the impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension. The study was co-ordinated by the University of Westminster, which provided an independent assessment of the study findings. The main aims set for the study were:

1. To understand how the extension has affected London; and 2. To improve appraisal and forecasting techniques.

In addition to the main JLE Impact Study, TfL commissioned Colin Buchanan & Partners (CBP, 2004) to estimate the benefit/cost ratio of the JLE (using actual costs) and the scheme’s contribution to increasing national GDP. Also, to complement work on the JLE’s effect on the property market, Jones Lang LaSalle were commissioned to estimate the uplift in land and property values around Canary Wharf and Southwark stations due to the JLE (JLEISU, 2004a, Working Paper No. 57). This paper first describes the methodology adopted for the study, before assessing the impacts of the JLE under four broad categories: • Transport impacts and accessibility changes; • Residential and commercial development, including impacts on land value; • Employment and impacts on the economy; and • Impacts on residents and their travel patterns. Finally lessons learnt and the main conclusions of the study are discussed. This paper is based on the findings published in the Final Summary Report that synthesises findings from the component repeat studies (JLEISU, 2004b). 2 IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY Considerable effort was devoted to developing a comprehensive and robust assessment methodology, as many previous impact studies of major transport investments had proved largely inconclusive (JLEISU, 1997, Working paper No.4). An extensive literature review was carried out, to see what lessons could be learnt from previous studies. The main stages of the impact study comprised: • The scoping of the ‘dimensions of change’, in terms of the full range of

expected impacts, the potential geographical sphere of influence and the time scale over which major impacts might occur;

• The identification of ‘indicators of change’ against which impacts could be measured over time;


• Identifying appropriate data sources, and specifying new survey requirements where gaps were identified in existing data sources;

• Carrying out additional ‘before’ surveys; • Estimating a ‘baseline scenario’ from existing and new survey data,

representing likely future conditions without the JLE; • Carrying out ‘after’ surveys, timed to coincide with immediate, mid and

longer term (not yet undertaken) impacts; • Analysing ‘after’ data against the ‘baseline’, to identity instances where

differences have occurred and using various quantitative and qualitative data sources to attribute cause and effect, taking into account other major developments in the corridor (e.g. DLR Extension to Lewisham);

• Developing an assessment framework for summarising impacts; Some of the novel features of the methodology included: • Analysis at station catchment (c. 1km radius) and JLE Corridor levels; • Use of ‘reference’ rather than ‘control’ areas; • Beginning measurement of change several years in advance of the

opening of the JLE. Impact studies have traditionally identified ‘control’ areas (i.e. areas as similar as possible in character to the JLE station catchment areas), in order to remove the effects of extraneous factors from the comparisons of ‘before’ and ‘after’ data. It proved impractical to find comparable local areas, and so the concept of the ‘reference’ area was developed. This is more general in extent than a control area, and may differ according to the indicator under investigation. It represents an area of London that is likely to be subject to similar pressures to those experienced by the relevant part of the JLE Corridor. For example, the ‘Inner East London area’ has been used as the reference area for unemployment rates along most of the Corridor, and the ‘Central London Fringe area’ has been used as the reference area for property pressures affecting the Isle of Dogs. In order to fully explore the impacts of the JLE, eleven subject-based studies were commissioned and six surveys conducted before and after opening. 3 TRANSPORT IMPACTS AND ACCESSIBILITY 3.1 Connectivity and faster journey times The Jubilee Line provides interchange opportunities with all the other Underground lines (Figure 2) and with the DLR. It directly serves two main line stations, Waterloo, and London Bridge. The JLE also connects with the national railway system at Stratford, Canning Town and West Ham. New bus stations were constructed at Canada Water, North Greenwich, Canning Town and Stratford. The JLE has a scheduled service of 24 trains per hour eastbound and 20 trains per hour westbound in the peak, and a headway of 3-4 minutes off peak. The extension offers wheelchair access at all stations.


Figure 2: Underground and National Rail Interchange Opportunities

3.2 Increased Capacity The JLE has increased capacity and reduced crowding levels by providing alternative routes to users of the: • Central Line between Stratford and Bond Street; • District Line between West Ham and Westminster; • Hammersmith and City Line between West Ham and Baker Street; • Bakerloo Line between Waterloo and Baker Street; and • DLR between Stratford and Canary Wharf, and between Canary Wharf

and Central London. With the introduction of the JLE, the maximum number of people that could be carried from East London to Central London by the Underground and DLR increased by 27.5%, from 35,000 to 44,650 passengers per hour (planning standard capacity). The increase in capacity was even greater from central London to the Isle of Dogs, with the planning standard capacity of the JLE and DLR increasing by 668%, from 1,730 to 13,300 passengers per hour. Due to the pace of development along the JLE, and in particular on the Isle of Dogs, a 46% increase in capacity by 2010 (compared to pre May 2004 levels) is planned. This will be delivered by the addition of a seventh car to the existing train fleet and increasing train frequency from 24 to 30 trains per hour in the peak hours. 3.3 Transport Demand The JLE carries over 158,000 passengers per day on the busiest section of line between Waterloo and Southwark, and more than 137,000 passengers per day over the section between Bermondsey and Canada Water. The improvement in network performance resulted in existing Underground, National Rail and DLR users in 2000 saving a total of 14.4 million hours per year. Users of the JLE were asked how they would have travelled (to the same destination) before the JLE opened. The majority (54%) would have used alternative Underground lines as their main mode; 14% previously used National Rail services as their main mode; 21% used the DLR, 7% bus and 2% private car. Very few JLE trips replaced previous walk/cycle trips. It is


estimated that in 2000 at least 3,273 person trips per day were removed from the road network. 3.4 Transport Accessibility Changes in accessibility between different areas arising from the operation of the JLE have been estimated by comparing the 2001 public transport network with the JLE (including all rail and bus services) against the equivalent network without the JLE. Figure 3 provides an example of a time plot for North Greenwich, showing the areas of London that can be reached within 60 minutes. This station benefits most from the improved accessibility afforded by the JLE. Without the JLE most areas of West London were more than 60 minutes away by public transport; many of these are now generally within 60 minutes of North Greenwich, and areas formally at the edge of the 60-minute envelope are now within 30-40 minutes of the station. Figure 3: Improvements in Accessibility at North Greenwich from the JLE.

Figure 4 presents information on access to population in a different way, showing the numbers of people in London accessible from each station within different time bands, from 20 minutes to 60 minutes, with and without the JLE. It can be seen that the JLE substantially increases the accessibility of North Greenwich, Canada Water and Bermondsey and, to a lesser extent, Canning Town and Southwark. For example, the population within 40 minutes of North


Greenwich station increases by 1,348,000 from 182,000 to 1,530,000; this is a 741% increase. The increase at Canada Water is 1,374,000 (275%) and at Bermondsey 1,144,000 (218%). Figure 4: Population within Different Journey Time Bands from Selected JLE Stations

4 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 4.1 Planning Policies The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was established in 1981 and developed its own policies for the regeneration of Docklands. In the early days of the Corporation, relatively low-density development was permitted, but this was probably due to the lack of demand in a depressed area with resultant low land values. The LDDC's more flexible planning policies, together with tax advantages, resulted in commercial and residential development in an inner city area in advance of similar areas of London. The LDDC's powers were progressively transferred to London Boroughs, by 1998. Local policies are set out in the Boroughs’ Unitary Development Plans (UDPs). A review of those in force during the 1990’s found that there was general acceptance of the potential benefit of the JLE as a catalyst for change and development, and the need to take account of the quality and proximity of public transport when considering the location of major new development was recognised at the strategic level. However, this did not normally lead to any revised requirements affecting the pattern, form or scale of development in the areas around the stations.

Resident population within journey times of JLE stations.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Westminster Waterloo Southwark LondonBridge

Bermondsey CanadaWater

Isle of Dogs NorthGreenwich

CanningTown

West Ham Stratford

Catchment Area and time bands (20, 30, 40 & 60 minutes).

Popx1,000

With the JLE

Without the JLE


4.2 Residential development Analysis of planning application data (from the London Development Monitoring System) shows more interest in residential development in the core JLE catchments, CORA, following authorisation of the JLE, than in the Inner East London Reference Area (Figure 5). In absolute terms, the rate of residential dwelling construction in the JLE corridor increased from under 1,000 units per annum in the three years from 1991 to 1994 to 2,200 units per annum over the seven-year period 1994 to 2000. The proportion of residential units built in the Inner East London Area (IELA) that was in CORA doubled over these two time periods. The extent to which this can be attributed to the JLE is complicated by two factors: • Fluctuations in the development market mean that an upturn in

development applications would have been expected after 1993 in any case;

• The JLE catchment areas contain a substantial proportion of the developable land in East London, and indeed the JLE alignment was decided in large part on the basis that it would open up large areas of such land for development.

Figure 5: CORA and the boroughs of the Inner East London Area

The higher rates of residential applications and development in CORA through the second half of the 1990’s could be associated with a ‘critical mass’ of development being achieved, which then generates sufficient


confidence in locations for increased levels of development interest. Overcoming a negative image of an area can take several years, but the JLE may have helped in reducing the time required to bring about developer interest. Overall, the increase in relative planning applications is indicative of the enabling or encouraging impact of the accessibility afforded by the JLE. 4.3 Commercial development Major commercial developments are usually longer in the formation stage due to their high costs and the difficulty of phasing. This is particularly the case when there is no established market. In the case of the JLE, there have to date been no major commercial developments in the JLE Corridor, other than at Canary Wharf Estate. This is, however, almost certainly a matter of timing, as applications currently in the pipeline for commercial schemes will result in a very substantial amount of development. Three of the largest proposals are described below: • Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf Estate was already well established prior to

the JLE and is one of the largest commercial developments in the UK. However, the capacity of the transport system was a limiting factor in its development. In 1991 the estate comprised 502,000 sq.m (5.4 million sq.ft); this had increased to 1.5 million sq.m (16.6 million sq.ft) in 2003. The Estate’s current developments will take the total to 1.9 million sq.m (20 million sq.ft) in the foreseeable future, while further possible development will take the Estate to 2.4 million sq.m (26 million sq.ft). The JLE has increased capacity thereby enabling an additional 12 million sq.ft and a type, scale and density of development not possible without it.

• North Greenwich. Following the closure of the Millennium Dome at the

end of 2000 (which would not have been located there without the JLE), plans have been approved for a 26,000-seat sports arena in the Dome and a mixed-use scheme, including 340,000 sq.m (3.65 m sq.ft) of offices with the potential to accommodate 14,000 employees. The Masterplan also includes 33,000 sq.m (355,000 sq.ft) of retail, over 10,000 new homes, a school and a hotel. It would appear that developers now have confidence in the peninsular, which was largely inaccessible prior to the construction of the JLE.

• Stratford. Plans for former industrial and railway lands around the JLE

and Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) stations include 465,000 sq.m (5 million sq.ft) of office space, 150,000 sq.m of retail space (1.6 million sq.ft) and 4,500 residential units. Whilst most of this development can be ascribed to the CTRL, it can be argued that the JLE was influential in securing the CTRL station at Stratford and is, therefore, a contributory factor to securing the development. It is unlikely that the scale of development would be achieved without the JLE. Also the area around Stratford is central to London’s bid for the 2012 Olympic games.


4.4 Impact of the JLE on Land Value Jones Lang LaSalle were commissioned to identify the impact of the JLE on increasing land values around two stations, Canary Wharf and Southwark. For the purposes of the study it was assumed that the majority of any uplift in value would occur within 500m of stations for commercial uses and 750m for residential uses. The two stations were compared against the performance of residential, commercial, retail and industrial sectors in reference areas. There is a high variance around the estimates, but at Southwark it was estimated that the uplift in land value due to the JLE is in the region of £800m, and at Canary Wharf in the region of £2bn. 5 EMPLOYMENT AND IMPACTS ON THE ECONOMY 5.1 Impact on employment A survey of employers in the JLE Corridor showed that there was a general perception that the JLE has provided better integration into the regional rail-based transport network, and so enabled firms to recruit from a wider, South East England labour market. The JLE is also perceived to have helped change the image of the areas through which it passes, making it easier to recruit high calibre staff. Table 1 considers what might have been the likely pattern of employment in the Corridor had the JLE not been built, with employment growing at the same sectoral rate as the Greater London area (GLA), or the Inner East London Area (IELA), between 1995-98 and 1998-2000. If it had followed the Greater London Area trend between 1995-98, then employment in the JLE Corridor would have been 16,600 higher at 1998, or 23,200 higher if it had followed the Inner East London Area trend. This suggests that no employment effect took place in advance of the JLE opening. But it may also highlight the fact that, in the absence of the JLE, the Corridor could be expected to continue to under perform relative to other parts of London. The post-opening period is very different. This shows the JLE Corridor as having 32,400 more jobs than it would have done if it had followed the Greater London Area growth rates of employment, or 15,800 higher had it followed Inner East London Area growth rates of employment. Evidence suggests that employment has continued to grow strongly in parts of the JLE Corridor since 2000; for example, nearly 30,000 jobs have been added at Canary Wharf between 2000 and 2003. The capacity provided by the JLE is able to support a total of 48,000 jobs on the Isle of Dogs.


Table 1 JLE Area Wards and Corridor Trend Growth Rates.

If Greater London growth rates:

GLA 1995-98

Actual Change (Actual-GLA)

GLA 1998-2000

Actual Change (Actual-GLA)

1998 1998 1998 2000 2000 2000

Primary, Manufacturing & Construction 41,800 37,700 -4,100 37,100 42,800 5,700 Wholesale, Retail 38,600 38,000 -600 39,400 39,100 -300 Hotels & Catering 24,000 22,400 -1,600 23,800 27,100 3,300 Transport & Communications 30,300 34,800 4,500 36,600 36,700 100 Financial & Business 119,500 121,000 1,500 139,000 155,400 16,400 Public Admin & Services 127,600 111,400 -16,200 117,700 124,900 7,200 Total 381,800 365,200 -16,600 393,600 426,000 32,400 If Inner East London Area growth rates

IELA 1995-98

Actual Actual-IELA

IELA 1995-2000

Actual Actual-IELA

1998 1998 1998 2000 2000 2000

Primary, Manufacturing & Construction 40,300 37,700 -2,600 37,800 42,800 5,000 Wholesale, Retail 40,000 38,000 -2,000 39,500 39,100 -400 Hotels & Catering 26,300 22,400 -3,900 25,500 27,100 1,600 Transport & Communications 32,400 34,800 2,400 37,700 36,700 -1,000 Financial & Business 122,700 121,000 -1,700 150,300 155,400 5,100 Public Admin & Services 126,700 111,400 -15,300 119,400 124,900 5,500 Total 388,400 365,200 -23,200 410,200 426,000 15,800 5.2 Household Economic Activity Changes in the JLE Corridor have closely mirrored those in the wider reference areas, with a large increase in the proportion of the population in employment between 1991 and 2001. In 2001, the population of the JLE Corridor was marginally less likely to be in employment (59.6%) compared with Greater London (63.2%), but more likely than the population of the IEL reference area (58.8%). With the commercial emphasis in London on the financial and business sectors, it is not surprising that a high proportion of employment is found in managerial professional and technical (MPT) occupations. Between 1991 and 2001, the proportion of employment in the MPT occupations in Greater London and the IEL reference area increased to around 50% from around 40% (+11 pp.). During this period, the proportion of the population employed in MPT occupations in the JLE Corridor increased by 19 pp to 50.6%, thereby bringing it into line with the London average. Economic Characteristics of Incumbent and Migrant Populations Analysis of Household Panel Survey data (carried out in 1998/9 and 2000/1 in four station catchment areas) revealed some significant differences in the economic characteristics of the incumbent, in-mover (to existing properties) and new-build residents (Table 2).


Table 2: Economic Profile of Incumbent and Migrant Residents Across the Surveyed Catchment Areas

ALL SURVEYED STATION CATCHMENTS Staying (1998/9)

Staying (2000/1)

Out-moving (1998/9)

In-moving (2000/1)

Newbuild (2000/1)

Employed (%) (individuals aged 16 and older) 50.0 49.2 61.9 67.7 83.0

Employed in managerial, professional & associate professional or technical occupations (%)

28.3 35.5 47.8 59.8 82.1

Sample: Individuals (n >= 11 years) 1,746 1,918 310 347 711

Households (n) 909 909 179 179 404

Source: JLEIS Household Survey 1998/9 and 2000/1. Quoted samples sizes relate to the absolute base; data have not been weighted. Marginally different sample sizes may apply to the presented variables according to the question specific response rate. Household sample numbers are always consistent. Individual household sample numbers vary between sample period due to (i) in-ward and out-ward movement of individual household members and (ii) natural ageing of the population, including household members crossing the 11 year age threshold.

While the proportion in employment among the incumbent population remained unchanged following the opening of the JLE (50% before vs. 49% after), this figure was 19 pp. higher among in-movers (at 68%) and 34 pp higher among new-build occupants (at 83%). The incumbent residents showed an increase in the proportion in managerial, professional or technical (MPT) occupations between 1998/9 and 2000/1 of 7pp, although this remained relatively low, at 36%. In contrast, migrants were considerably more likely to be employed in the MPT occupations: 60% of in-movers and 82% of new-build occupants.

Overall, the evidence suggests that the JLE has had little positive impact on employment among the incumbent populations, either in terms of higher levels or in the character of employment (occupation and industry). Instead, changes are largely the result of the different profile of the migrants. Most notably, those moving into new-build, were significantly more likely to be employed, possess higher-level qualifications and be employed in MPT occupations. Although the sample of out-movers is small, the economic profile of this group shared more in common with other migrants than with the incumbent population. This might suggest an exodus by the younger, employed and better qualified residents in search of better opportunities and living arrangements. Further examination, however, reveals that a high proportion of these residents were recent migrants, themselves having moved to the catchments within the last two years. Combined with the intention of many recent migrants to move again, might in turn suggest that locating to the area was intended as a temporary measure, possibly to obtain a foothold in the London property and labour markets, before moving on elsewhere. 5.3 Unemployment rates of corridor residents The JLE Corridor has historically suffered from particularly high unemployment rates, and the increase in employment in the JLE Corridor appears to have been of some, but only limited, benefit to established local residents. In the five years from August 1996 to August 2001, recorded unemployment in the JLE Corridor fell by 49% (Table 3). However, this was


less than for Inner East London (54%) and considerably less than for the whole of Greater London (58%) – indicating that the JLE has not been able to assist in making inroads into long-term, core unemployment levels.

Table 3. Change in unemployment among residents of the JLE Corridor compared to

other areas of London, between August 1996 and August 2001.

Unemployment Area Aug-96 Aug-98 Aug-01 Growth

1996-1998 Base=1996

Growth 1998-2001 Base=1996

Growth 1996-2001 Base=1996

JLE Corridor 13,260 8,950 6,720 -32.5 -16.8 -49.3Inner East London 153,650 103,340 70,270 -32.7 -21.5 -54.3Central London 8,310 6,170 4,450 -25.8 -20.7 -46.5Greater London 368,850 230,490 154,660 -37.5 -20.6 -58.1Source: Revised Annual Employment Survey Analysis, Annual Business Inquiry, NOMIS. Data not available for 1995. For London as a whole, between September 1996 and December 2000 it is estimated that 609,000 new jobs were created and unemployment fell by 214,200. This is a ratio of one less unemployed person for every 3 jobs created. For the ‘Outer eight’ JLE station catchment areas (i.e. east of London Bridge) employment increased by 42,000 between September 1995 and December 2000. In the slightly different, but equal, time period from August 1996 to August 2001, unemployment in the same area fell by 5,300. Only one less unemployed person is recorded for every 8 new jobs. This shows that the link between local job creation and local unemployment reduction is by no means a direct one-to-one process. Given the positive impact of the JLE in increasing employment levels, it is disappointing that the JLE has not had more success in reducing relative unemployment levels in its catchment areas. 5.4 Impacts on the wider economy Over the last couple of years, Transport for London and Cross London Rail Links have attempted to develop mechanisms for measuring and valuing some of the wider economic and social benefits of major new rail construction. Consultants were commissioned to measure the impact on Gross Domestic Product derived from JLE user benefits and efficiency gains (known as agglomeration benefits). 5.4.1 GDP growth derived from JLE user benefits The degree to which the transportation benefits contribute to GDP depends largely on journey purpose (leisure, commuting and in-work time), value of time and the proportion of transport benefits that can be turned into economic growth. It is estimated that between £2.1 and £2.9 billion pounds of the £10.9 billion (Net Present Value) transportation benefits of the JLE will result in additional


economic growth over a 60-year period. That equates to between 19% and 26% of the transport benefits. In addition, since the British Government’s tax take is about 40% of UK GDP, this suggests that between £0.8 and £1.1bn at 2003 prices will accrue to the government through existing tax mechanisms over a 60 year period. 5.4.2 Agglomeration Benefits There is a transport constraint on further growth in central London set by the capacity of the existing networks. Research for Cross London Rail Links suggests that employment is at the limit of the available transport capacity. The JLE has served to open up a new part of that central cluster on the Isle of Dogs (specifically at Canary Wharf) as well as adding capacity into the West End from the south and east. By enabling the urban cluster to grow it will have increased productivity for the additional jobs within the cluster and for the base jobs that were already located within the urban cluster. It has been estimated that £5.8bn (2003 prices) net value will be gained as a result of the JLE between 2000 and 2060 due to the direct employment added. We attribute a further £3.8bn (2003 prices) to output gained over the same period for agglomeration benefits arising from increased overall employment density. All of the £5.8bn and 40% of the £3.8bn is expected to accrue to Government through increased tax revenues, a total in excess of £7.32bn in 2003 prices. 6 IMPACTS ON THE RESIDENT POPULATION 6.1 Population Growth in the JLE Corridor The Census indicates marginally faster population growth in the JLE Corridor than in the reference area between 1981-1991. Significantly faster growth was observed between 1991-2001, when the population in the JLE Corridor grew by 31.2%, compared with 10.7% growth in the IEL reference area. Population growth has not occurred in all parts of the Corridor, and it is interesting to note that the largest population increases have occurred in the catchments where the JLE has provided access to the underground for the first time, i.e. between Bermondsey and Canning Town. Potential explanatory factors include the high level of vacant land available for residential development and the supportive residential development policies of the now defunct London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). However, the JLE has clearly been a positive factor. Between 1997-99, after the LDDC had been wound up, a disproportionately high volume of all residential development recorded in the IEL area, and the key JLE boroughs (Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham), was focussed in the central sections of the JLE Corridor between Bermondsey and Canning Town. Despite the larger population increases in the JLE Corridor, the trends in age and ethnic structure were broadly similar to those observed in Greater London and the reference areas: the population grew both ‘younger’ and more


ethnically diverse. However, between 1991 and 2001, the extent of this structural change was greater within the JLE Corridor, where the younger population, aged 0-45 years, increased by +7.0 pp. compared with Greater London (+2.1 pp) and IEL (+4.3 pp.). The ethnic population of the Corridor increased by +14.1 pp. compared with smaller changes in Greater London (+8.6 pp) and the IEL reference area (+10.6 pp.). By 2001 the population in the JLE Corridor exhibited a younger profile when compared with the reference areas but, despite significant structural change, remained less ethnically diverse. The trend towards smaller households, evident in Greater London and the IEL reference area, was also reflected in the household composition within the JLE Corridor. Since 1971, single person households have increased, as have single parent households. 6.2 Migration Patterns in the JLE Corridor Historically, a high proportion of migration within the JLE Corridor, as elsewhere in London, was local in nature, involving moves within the same borough or between neighbouring London boroughs. Analysis of the Household Panel Survey indicates a recent change in migration patterns; the four catchments were attracting migrants from greater distances. In 1998/9 and 2000/1, migrants locating to the catchments in the previous two years, were much less likely to have moved locally (as defined above) and more likely to have moved from further afield in London, or from outside of London. This suggests that these areas are increasingly being considered as desirable places in which to live. However, much of the relocation by new migrants – in-mover and new-build – appears to be ‘transitory’ in nature. Between one-fifth and one-third of new migrants planned to relocate again within the next year, and a high proportion intended to leave the area. There was evidence of similar activity in 1998/9; when an examination of out-moving households revealed that between one-third and one-half had resided in the catchment for less than two years before moving. The proportion of in-movers citing either the ‘opening of the JLE’ (5% to 7%) or ‘existing local public transport’ (0% to 6%) as an influence on their location choice was relatively low. The exception was Canary Wharf where 16% of in-movers cited ‘existing local public transport’. Among new-build households, existing ‘local public transport’ was cited more frequently, particularly in Canada Water (11%) and Canning Town (12%) but less so in Bermondsey (4%) and Canary Wharf (6%); 17% of new-build households in Canada Water explicitly mentioned the ‘opening of the JLE’ as an influencing factor. ‘Convenience for work’ was more commonly cited as a locational influence, mentioned by 13% of incumbent residents in Bermondsey, 24% in Canada Water and 32% in Canary Wharf. These proportions were much higher among migrants: in the catchment areas between Bermondsey and Canary Wharf, ‘convenience for work’ was cited by 39%-57% of in-movers and by 53%-59%


of new-build occupants. Given the relatively low proportions of these groups employed locally (between 7% and 23%), this suggests a link between relocating to the areas and the opening of the JLE. 6.3 Characteristics of the Incumbent and Migrant Populations There are quite significant differences between the population characteristics of the incumbent, out-mover and new-build residents, as shown in Table 4. Migrant residents were significantly younger than the incumbent residents (with the latter having a mean age of 40). On average in-mover residents were 11 years younger (at 29 years) and new-build residents were 7 years younger (at 33 years). This difference was largely due to the absence among migrants of residents over 65 years and a much-reduced proportion aged between 40-64 years. The smaller difference among the new-build residents was due to the virtual absence of children aged 0-15 years. New-build migrants moving into the catchments were more likely to be from white ethnic origins (81%), compared with the incumbent population (69%). This is counter to the general trend observed in the Census, where a high proportion of migrants were from the ethnic minority groups. Table 4: Contrasting Profiles of Resident Groups in the Surveyed Catchments


Staying (2000/1)

Out-moving (1998/9)

In-moving (2000/1)

Newbuild (2000/1)

Migrants making local move (%) (Note a) 64.9 55.4 36.9 41.5 30.6

Average age (Note b ) 39.9 40.1 34.5 29.0 32.9

White ethnic origin (%) (Note c ) 69.0 68.0 75.4 66.8 81.4

Married or cohabiting couple (%) 17.4 17.3 14.5 16.8 32.9

Property owned or buying with mortgage (%) 25.0 30.6 25.2 20.2 36.5

Average household income (£) (Note d) 13,201 16,182 21,076 24,204 45,067

Households claiming 1+ benefit (%) (Note e) 56.2 51.8 35.6 28.0 8.5

Car owning household (%) 49.4 49.4 52.0 39.1 62.1


Households (n) 909 909 179 179 404


(a) ‘Local moves’ defined as moves within the same local authority: Southwark for Bermondsey and Canada Water, Tower Hamlets for Isle of Dogs and Newham for Canning Town.

(b) Cited average age calculated on individuals aged 11 years and older. 1998/9 Survey did not collect ages of individual members aged 10 years and younger. 'Staying' households were more likely to contain young persons aged 15 years and under compared with 'Out-movers and 'In-movers'; Newbuild households were least likely to contain young persons.

(c) Cited percentages calculated on individuals aged 11 years and older. 1998/9 Survey did not collect the ethnic origin of individual members aged 10 years and younger.

(d) Average household income calculated as McClements Equivalised Gross Income and based on responding households only; 5% trimmed mean.

(e) Benefits including non-means tested Child benefit and means tested benefits: Family Credit, Income Support, State Pension, Job Seekers Allowance and Housing benefit.


New-build households were twice as likely to be married or co-habiting (33%) compared with incumbent households (17%). Both in-mover and new-build households were less likely to be single person or single parent households. While the average equivalised household income of incumbent households increased by nearly 23% between 1998/9 and 2000/1 (to £16,200 or 24,000 Euro), this change was in line with the London average. Migrant households were likely to enjoy higher incomes and were less likely to be in receipt of benefits. The average income of in-mover households in 2000/1 was 50% higher (at £24,200 or 35,600 Euro), while the average income of new-build households was 178% higher (at £45,100 or 66,300 Euro). The receipt of state benefits was highest among the incumbent residents (56%); in-mover (28%) and new-build (9%) residents were much less likely to claim benefits. New-build households were most likely to own or be buying the property in which they lived (37%), followed by incumbent households (31%) and then in-movers (20%). Levels of car ownership were also higher among in-mover (39%) and new-build (62.1%) than incumbent (49%) households. 7 TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR General travel characteristics of respondents to the Household Panel Survey are summarised in Table 5. In 2001, the highest reported levels of general use of the JLE were by new-build residents (73%), followed by in-movers (60%); much lower levels of use were reported by incumbent residents (37%).

Table 5: Travel Profile of Resident Groups Across the Surveyed Catchments


Staying (2000/1)

Out-moving (1998/9)

In-moving (2000/1)

Newbuild (2000/1)

General use of the JLE (%) - 36.7 - 59.6 73.1

Shopping (food) (% locally) (Note g) 81.1 78.4 86.1 80.6 65.1

Personal shopping (% using JLE) - 20.6 - 38.2 42.9

Employed locally (%) (Note h) 30.3 28.5 19.5 14.6 16.2

Travel to work using the JLE (%) - 30.1 - 38.6 34.2


Households (n) 909 909 179 179 404


(g) ‘Local shopping’ defined as SE1 and SE16 for Bermondsey; SE16 for Canada Water; E14 for Canary Wharf (Isle of Dogs); E14 and E16 for Canning Town.

(h) ‘Local employment’ defined as: SE1 and SE16 for Bermondsey; SE16 for Canada Water; E14 for Canary Wharf (Isle of Dogs); E14 and E16 for Canning Town.

The focus of the weekly household shop by incumbent and by migrant households remained the local area; as a consequence, the JLE was rarely used for this purpose. However, new-build residents were less likely to use local shopping areas (65%), compared with around 80% among incumbent


and in-mover households. The JLE was more frequently used by all groups for personal shopping, particularly among the new-build residents where use was highest (43%). There was no change in the location of employment among the incumbent population, where a relatively high proportion of residents (30%), continued to be employed locally. Consequently, there was no increase in the proportion of residents crossing the Thames for work. In contrast, migrant residents were less likely to be employed locally (15% of in-movers and 16% of new-build). There was some evidence of increased cross-Thames travel among new-build residents living south of the Thames, but travel south of the river was not evident among the new-build residents living north of the Thames. Given the pattern of employment, it was not surprising that use of the JLE was relatively low among the incumbent employed (30%) and higher among the migrant populations, although not substantially so: 37% among the in-mover and 34% among the new-build employed. 8 ENVIRONMEMTAL AND TOWNSCAPE IMPACTS The impact of the JLE on the environment was assessed on six dimensions: i) noise and vibration, ii) air quality, iii) water quality, iv) urban ecology, v) contaminated land and vi) cultural heritage and townscape. The monitoring exercises indicated that the JLE was found to have little direct impact on the environment. Much of this is the result of the technology used in the operation of the JLE and the route of the JLE, travelling either underground or parallel to existing railway lines. Where negative noise impacts were observed these were at locations already affected by other sources, including road and other train operations. Indeed, there were a number of dimensions on which the JLE has had a positive impact. The JLE trains are powered by electricity so there are no direct combustion emissions at the point of operation and there are potential reductions in emissions resulting from modal switch to the JLE for some journeys. The construction and operation of the JLE has also resulted in a reduction in previously contaminated land. Contaminated land was acquired for operational reasons, and by using the spoil from tunnel construction to cap the site at North Greenwich, this enabled the site to be brought into use, preventing the need to transport the contaminated waste to another location. 9 LESSONS LEARNT The impact study spanned a six-year period, during which the policy environment has changed considerably, and a number of lessons were learnt regarding the appraisal process, and the role and capability of monitoring studies.


9.1 Policy Issues The JLE was conceived as a strategic transport link in the London rail network, which would also encourage the regeneration of the area through which it passed. As a consequence, less attention was paid to local impacts and to some broader policy issues than would be considered appropriate in the current policy climate. Five aspects are identified that would now demand greater attention: • Complementary land use policies: local authority policies did not

encourage higher density development around stations, nor reduce parking standards, although this is now changing;

• Non-vehicular transport: while much emphasis was placed on good bus/rail interchange, relatively little effort was put into ensuring good local access on foot or by bicycle;

• Social inclusion: it was assumed that local residents and businesses would benefit from regeneration along the route of the JLE, but there were no complementary policies to ensure that these benefits were maximised (e.g. by re-training local unemployed residents);

• Sustainability: several of the Mayor’s strategies now stress the importance of increasing the sustainability of activity in London. Again, in keeping with earlier policy priorities, no sustainability audit was undertaken to assess the contribution that the JLE could make, either in terms of its construction or operation;

• Land value capture: this is discussed further below. 9.2 Appraising the impact of new transport investments The JLE was quantitatively appraised using the standard procedures for the assessment of transport schemes at that time. It was recognised, however, that this was only a partial evaluation and was not able to include a large number of benefits, many of which were unquantifiable or could not be monetarised. Since then the procedures for the appraisal of transport investment schemes have been revised, with the development of the New Approach to Transport Appraisal (NATA) and the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS). In this study we have developed our own methodology, but based on the NATA approach. We have found that it suffers from the strengths and weaknesses of all such multi-criteria approaches. The strength is that they ensure that a wide range of potential impacts is covered; the weakness is that there is no recognised way of determining the relative importance of the different indicators. A particularly important issue for appraisal is the extent to which changes in land and property values should be included. Traditionally, these have been paid little attention, because it has been argued that the increase in land values brought about by a new transport investment is due to the change in transport accessibility, the benefits of which are directly measured in terms of


travel time savings. To include both indicators would, therefore, be double-counting the same underlying benefit. However, there are several counter arguments: • If changes in land and property values are used as a major means of

financing new transport investment, as currently proposed, then it is essential to estimate these values and include them in the appraisal;

• Only part of the increase in property prices is likely to be directly attributable to the increase in accessibility. After a short period of operation of the JLE, any further uplift in value is likely to be due to multiplier effects associated with enhanced area attractiveness due to the initial accessibility-stimulated investment. These agglomeration effects would not be captured in estimates of travel time savings;

• Increases in property prices and land values have important distributional effects, forcing some poorer renters to move out to cheaper areas. Further, those who gain financially from price increases may be different from those who benefit from time savings;

• Finally, changes in land and property values are crucial to understanding the regeneration process. They give a clear indication of market demand for property in an area; and the prevailing prices largely determine the commercial attractiveness of refurbishing or redeveloping a site, and influence the density at which it is worth constructing new development.

9.3 Role and capability of monitoring studies The decisions to use ‘reference’ rather than ‘control’ areas, to start measuring potential impacts several years in advance of the line’s construction and operation, and to use qualitative as well as quantitative data to assess causation, were all vindicated. One element of our methodology which, with the benefit of hindsight, we would recommend dropping in any future impact study was the preparation of a Baseline Forecast, in advance of the opening of the line. This proved to be a time-consuming and ineffective process. In a large and complex environment such as the JLE Corridor, the best estimate of the ‘without JLE’ situation can only be made when all the facts are known, once the ‘after’ data is available. In the event, far less reliance was placed on the Baseline Forecasts than had originally been intended. In a number of cases, data problems have proved to be more significant than anticipated, in particular: • Some data sets have proved difficult to obtain (e.g. property market

values); • Others have a long time lag, making it difficult to include data for a

significant period of time after the JLE started operation; • Difficulties in obtaining detailed 2001 Census travel data or LATS data

within the timescales of the study have prevented us from making as


comprehensive an assessment of changes in travel behaviour along the whole of the JLE Corridor as we would have liked; and

• Some data sets lack important variables (e.g. in the LDMS, former use of a site planned for (re)development).

Recent developments in data collection and collation (e.g. UK neighbourhood statistics, GIS-referenced data sets, and new tracking technologies) should simplify certain aspects of monitoring in any future study.

One of the main lessons for monitoring to have emerged from this study is an enhanced understanding of the various processes of change, both with regard to their timing and the nature of their impact. In future, this knowledge should both enable more targeted collection of data, and a more realistic expectation of the extent to which various impacts are likely to manifest themselves within different time periods. 10 CONCLUSIONS London Transport indicated in their evidence to the House of Commons Committee scrutinising the JLE, that the expected benefits of the JLE included: • The provision of a direct link between Docklands and the commuter

terminals of Waterloo and London Bridge; • Greatly increasing the transport capacity into the Isle of Dogs; • Providing a direct link between Docklands and the West End; • Strengthening public transport links between Stratford with its commuter

services and Docklands; • Opening up the North Greenwich Peninsula; • Relieving congestion on existing lines and at existing stations; • Improving access by the Underground to Southwark and Bermondsey; • Improving access between the West End and Waterloo and London

Bridge; • Relieving road congestion in a number of busy Corridors; • Enhancing transport for tourism and leisure; and • Providing London's safest Underground railway line. On the basis of our appraisal we believe these benefits have largely been realised, although it has not been possible to assess all of them (e.g. relief of road congestion). The impacts of the JLE on London have been many and diverse though, in practice, it is often difficult to attribute causation. The extent and subtleties of the impacts can only be fully appreciated by reading the accompanying working papers and summary report (available at www.wmin.ac.uk and www.tfl.gov.uk) which give more details of the results of the studies and surveys specially commissioned for the JLEIS. The JLE has raised land values and property prices and has stimulated faster development than might otherwise have been expected. This impact is most


clearly evident in the Isle of Dogs, where the recent expansion of the initial Canary Wharf development has to some extent been both the cause and effect of the JLE. The need to provide adequate capacity to serve the full proposed development at Canary Wharf was one of the key reasons for constructing the JLE, and much of the recent development in the Isle of Dogs would not have happened as quickly – if at all - without the JLE. This applies even more strongly to the major expansion of development that is currently in the pipeline. Given the recent strength of the London property market and the potential offered by Docklands in having a significant supply of relatively under-occupied brownfield sites, it is probable that pressures for more development in Docklands would by now be emerging, even without the JLE. The JLE has, however, almost certainly hastened this trend that has been most apparent between London Bridge and the Isle of Dogs, and has relieved a major transport bottleneck constraint. Without the JLE the development would also probably have been of a different character and at a lower density. The general impact of the JLE on employment and business activity in London is more difficult to assess. We have shown that employment around JLE stations east of London Bridge has increased faster than for London as a whole, however from a relatively low base. The impact of the Canary Wharf development on the economy of London has been much more profound than the 50,000 jobs which by the start of 2003 had been created or relocated there. The existence of the Canary Wharf development demonstrated to international firms, particularly in the financial sector, that there was a potentially available and expandable supply of high quality office accommodation suitable for their needs and at lower rents than were then being charged in the City of London. Without this London might have found it harder to sustain its predominant financial position in Europe in the face of competition from other European capitals. As such the JLE, by enabling Canary Wharf to be developed, has made a major contribution to the whole London and national economy. The JLE passes through some of the most deprived wards in the country, and part of the intention in using the JLE as a catalyst to stimulate regeneration was to help increase the well being of the local population. There is strong evidence that the JLE has helped to increase economic activity in parts of the Corridor, but the limited evidence on the extent to which this has benefited the local indigenous population is mixed: • The traditional local population, particularly in the Docklands and Lower

Lea Valley areas, have made relatively little use of the JLE and their travel patterns have been largely unaffected by the investment;

• Local people have benefited only to a limited extent from the large increases in local employment partly attributable to the JLE. Long-term unemployment rates have dropped proportionally by no more in the station catchment areas than in comparable areas, confirming that the JLE has not helped to address these deep-seated local problems (e.g. providing employment for people who have been unemployed for a long period).


These may, however, be short or medium term phenomena. The process of regeneration may begin with an increase in property prices and up-market developments, but its primary benefit to local residents, employees, customers and visitors lies in improving the quality of the whole urban environment, ultimately creating new opportunities which are potentially available to all. The new development which the JLE has fostered may also have acted as a safety valve, preventing even faster rises of prices in the Inner East London housing market than would otherwise have been the case, and has relieved pressure on other parts of London. This must have had a beneficial effect on the whole London economy. In identifying the effect of the JLE it is important to note that certain impacts will manifest themselves over varying lengths of time. It is likely that the majority of journeys re-routing to take advantage of the JLE would have occurred within a relatively short time period of the JLE opening. In contrast, several decades may well be required to allow the full effect of the JLE on land use patterns (and associated travel patterns) to take place, and hence allow the full impacts of the scheme to be assessed.


References Colin Buchanan & Partners (2004) Reappraisal of the Jubilee Line Extension, prepared on behalf of Transport for London (TfL), London. JLEISU (1997) Working Paper No.4: Concepts and Methodological Framework for Assessing the Impact of the JLE, prepared by the Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study Unit. JLEISU (2004a) Working Paper No.57: Land and Property Value Study, prepared on behalf of the Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study Unit by Jones Lang LaSalle. JLEISU (2004b) Working Paper No.54: Summary Final report, prepared by the Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study Unit. Acknowledgements The JLE Impact Study Unit would like to thank all the consultants that have made contributions to the study: Robert Lane (Consultant) Tim Pharoah (Consultant) Chestertons UK, Property Market Study Jones Lang LaSalle, Land and Property Value Study Halcrow Fox, Transport Study Sinclair Knight Mertz, Transport Study MVA, Transport Study Arup Economics & Planning, Development Activity Study Tim Pharoah (Consultant), Development Activity Study University of North London, Visitor Activity Study Oxford Brookes University & University of Surrey, Perceptions Study Roger Tym & Partners, Economic Activity and Labour Market Study Environmental Resources Management, Environment Study Scott Wilson, Environment Study Social Transport & Research Associates, Agents of Change Survey Tim Grosvenor Associates IPSOS, Household and Employer panel Surveys Taylor Nelson Sofres, Household Panel Survey NOP, Employer Panel Survey Llewelyn-Davies, Land Use Survey

the jubilee line extension impact study main findings and lessons for future a

Documents