2019 06 West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case

West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Case
June 2019
1
West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case – June 2019
0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

1 The Approach to the Business Case ........................................................................... 23
2 Strategic Case ............................................................................................................. 24
2.1 Description ................................................................................................................24
2.2 Strategic context and the case for change.................................................................25
2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria .................................................................................43
2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs .............................................................44
2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements ..............................................................44
2.6 Strategic Options .......................................................................................................44
2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO) .......................................57
2.8 Constraints and Dependencies .................................................................................77
3 Economic Case ........................................................................................................... 80
3.1 Description ................................................................................................................80
3.2 Option selection ........................................................................................................80
3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues ......................................................81
3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits ..................................................................87
3.5 Economic Appraisal...................................................................................................89
3.6 Economic Case Conclusion.......................................................................................90
4 Commercial Case ........................................................................................................ 92
4.1 Description ................................................................................................................92
4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications ........................92
4.3 Construction and operation .......................................................................................93
5 Financial Case ............................................................................................................ 95
5.1 Description ................................................................................................................95
5.2 Financial Impact of the Project ..................................................................................95
5.3 Capital Costs Funding ...............................................................................................96
5.4 Operating Costs Funding ..........................................................................................99
6 Management Case .................................................................................................... 103
6.1 Description .............................................................................................................. 103
6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects ............................................. 103
6.3 Consents Strategy ................................................................................................... 103
6.4 Project assumptions ................................................................................................ 104
6.5 Project risk .............................................................................................................. 104
6.6 Governance ............................................................................................................ 105
6.7 Assurance ............................................................................................................... 105
6.8 Communication and stakeholder management........................................................ 107
6.9 Project reporting ...................................................................................................... 107
6.10 Project milestones and timescales .......................................................................... 107
7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 108
7.1 Overall Assessment ................................................................................................ 108
7.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................. 109
8 Glossary .................................................................................................................... 110
2
0 Executive Summary
0.1 Overview
0.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to
enhance public transport connectivity (in particular north-south ‘orbital’
connectivity) in west London in order to enable the delivery of new homes
and jobs, and support mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes
of transport.
0.1.1.2 The current Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) is in ‘Phase One” of
the iterative Business Case development process (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Business Case development phases
Source: DfT
0.1.1.3 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as

Proposal 88:
“The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and Network
Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground ‘West
London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and Hendon
via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.”
0.1.1.4 The scheme has also been referenced in west and north west London1
Local Planning Authorities’ (LPAs) local plans.
0.1.1.5 The scheme consists of a central core between South Acton and Neasden,
with two branch options at either end, to Hendon and West Hampstead in
the north, and to Hounslow and Kew Bridge in the south (Figure 2).
0.1.1.6 This SOBC shows that the WLO scheme has the potential to address three
critical strategic issues facing west and north west London by bringing land
into use for housing and employment, providing the connectivity needed to
address public transport severance, and delivering benefits to the wider
transport system, including for users of existing rail lines and the road
network.
1
West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith &
Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region.
3
0.1.1.7 The core WLO scheme (8tph) has been tested, alongside sensitivities
considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of
development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is
in the range of 1.4 – 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is
in the range 1.7 – 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to
high value for money.
0.1.1.8 Based on the findings of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the scheme
to be taken forward to the next stage of business case development.
0.1.1.9 If the scheme were to be progressed, further work would be required to
identify the preferred service pattern and the location and design of new
infrastructure including the stations.
Figure 2: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)
Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)
4
0.2 Strategic Case
0.2.1.1 The Strategic Case sets out the need for investment in a transport
intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes and
employment space to be built, improve north-south ‘orbital’ connectivity,
and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport network
London is growing and west and north west London is the UK’s second largest
economic powerhouse
 West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means it will
have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment growth over
the next 25 years
0.2.1.2 West and north west London is home to significant employment clusters
and eight Opportunity Areas, including Old Oak/Park Royal which will
become a national and regional gateway following the opening of the
Elizabeth line and HS2 station. The areas around Park Royal and
Heathrow in particular also have a high concentration of valuable Strategic
Industrial Locations (SIL). These characteristics mean the sub-region will
need to play a major role in delivering both the new homes and jobs that
London needs over the next 25 years.
Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser development and
employment growth in west and north west London
 New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and north west
London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces
 Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and
employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable growth
across the sub-region
0.2.1.3 London’s population has been increasing and is forecast to grow from 8.7
million to 10.8 million by 20412. This growth means that there is an
increase in demand for new and affordable homes. The draft new London
Plan recognises that all LPAs will need to significantly increase housing
delivery to meet the Capital’s need, particularly LPAs in outer London,
where 55 per cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered3. The draft
new London Plan sets ambitious housing delivery targets, including for
LPAs in west and north west London. LB Barnet, LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB
Hounslow and OPDC collectively account for 14.5 per cent of London’s
forecast population growth.
2
Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2017
3
Draft new London Plan 2017
5
Table 1: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in
west and north west London
Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target
Barnet 31,340
Brent 29,150
Ealing 28,070
Hounslow 21,820
OPDC 13,670
Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1)
0.2.1.4 Some of this growth will be accommodated in Opportunity Areas at Burnt

Oak/Colindale, Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal, Wembley
and the Great West Corridor. Wembley and Hounslow Town Centre are
also designated Housing Zones4, planned to deliver 2,840 and 3,900
homes respectively. Together these all form an arc across west and north
west London (Figure 3).
0.2.1.5 These Opportunity Areas are poorly connected both to each other and to
existing town centres. This limits access to amenities, services, and
employment and leisure opportunities for both existing and new residents
and employees.
Figure 3: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London
© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

Source: GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary
4
In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his
Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of
75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs
6
0.2.1.6 New public transport capacity and connectivity is needed to enable the
further delivery of new homes and jobs, both in existing neighbourhoods
and town centres, and in areas which have previously been undeveloped
or underdeveloped5. Enhanced public transport capacity could enable
existing neighbourhoods to grow sustainably while new public transport
connections could help unlock the full growth potential of parts of west and
north west London.
0.2.1.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these Opportunity Areas
will allow them to develop as an interconnected sub-regional network,
enabling new employment centres to be supported by nearby new
residential neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This
should help unlock additional new homes, over and above those unlocked
by committed schemes. Supporting this Good Growth6 will help London to
become a city where walking, cycling and using public transport is the
norm as its population increases to over 10 million.
Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north west London
 New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between Burnt
Oak/Colindale and Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas and Old Oak/Park
Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas as these places experience transformational
growth
 Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters in LB

Hounslow and areas to the north, including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area,
to ensure these areas can continue to grow sustainably
 Connecting existing radial rail routes to fast, reliable orbital public transport services
would enable commuters from outside of London to access existing and growing
employment clusters across west and north west London by public transport
0.2.1.8 Only 57 per cent of trips with an origin in west London are currently made
by active, efficient and sustainable modes. In order to achieve the MTS
aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made by active, efficient and sustainable
modes, boroughs across west and north west London must see significant
mode shift over the next two decades. Public transport will need to become
a more attractive alternative to the car, particularly for longer orbital trips
where significant barriers exist.
5
This does not include the Green Belt
6
The draft new London Plan describes Good Growth under policies GG1 – GG6
7
Table 2: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by sub-region
Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share
South 70% 54%
West 61% 57%
North 59% 58%
East 56% 63%
Central 37% 83%
Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17)
0.2.1.9 Achieving this will require three key connectivity challenges in west and
north west London to be addressed:
 Connectivity between LB Barnet and West London
 Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop (currently served by South
West Trains) and the North London line (currently served by London
Overground)
 Inter-connectivity from radial corridors such as those served by the
Jubilee and Bakerloo lines and Thameslink services to destinations in
the wider sub-region
0.2.1.10 There is a gap in orbital public transport provision between west and
north west London. Public transport journey times between LB Brent and
LB Barnet are relatively poor. For example, it takes the same time to travel
north from Harlesden to Brent Cross (5km) as it does to travel south to
Southfields (10km).
Figure 4: Journey time by public transport from Harlesden town centre
Brent Cross
Southfields
Map data ©2019 Google

Source: TfL WebCAT Map data ©2019 Google
0.2.1.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas of

housing and employment growth in north west London, particularly around
8
Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment

centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Given the strong pull that
is forecast to emerge between these locations (resulting from housing and
employment growth in the former and employment growth in particular in
the latter), it is vital that a competitive public transport option is provided to
ensure that new trips are made by active, efficient and sustainable modes.
0.2.1.12 Orbital connectivity from LB Hounslow is constrained by poor
interchange options between the Hounslow Loop line (served by
Southwestern Railway) and existing orbital rail such as the North London
line (served by London Overground). The requirement to make several
interchanges also acts as a barrier to spontaneous and independent travel
for disabled and older people.
0.2.1.13 This serves to limit public transport connectivity to the emerging
employment centres at Old Oak and the Great West Corridor. Residents of
LB Hounslow would have to make indirect journeys to access employment
opportunities at Old Oak by public transport, while residents in growing
neighbourhoods further north, such as North Acton, would not have
competitive public transport options to access jobs in the nearby Great
West Corridor.
0.2.1.14 This would have negative implications for mode share as these
employment centres grow, and/or act as a brake on development if
businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers and
employees. A better public transport option is needed to ensure this
employment growth does not increase car dependency, and is not
constrained by poor public transport connectivity.
0.2.1.15 The public transport network in west and north west London struggles to
cater for longer-distance orbital trips as there is a lack of orbital public
transport provision to link high-capacity radial lines together. This
means that the public transport network operates as a series of corridors
oriented towards central London, rather than as a regional system,
significantly limiting travel choice and connectivity.
0.2.1.16 The effects of this are also felt across the Wider South East, as west and
north west London’s employment mix draws commuters from well beyond
the London boundary, with some of the highest volumes of in-commuting
outside of central London.
0.2.1.17 For longer trips to be competitive by public transport, existing high
frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital
public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the
fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back-
track via central London. Improved orbital connectivity is critical to ensure
employment growth across the sub-region does not exacerbate highway
congestion.
0.2.1.18 While the Elizabeth Line will deliver new radial connectivity towards the
CAZ and Isle of Dogs, the impact on orbital connectivity within the sub-
9
region will be relatively limited outside of changes to the bus network to

improve links to Elizabeth line stations. Further intervention is needed.
Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to address
congestion and crowding in west and north west London
 A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to reduce
congestion on the road network in west and north west London
 Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate pressure

on the Piccadilly and West London lines
0.2.1.19 As a result of poor orbital public transport connectivity, many north-south

movements in west and north west London are considerably faster and
easier to make by car. Congestion is high where there are gaps in the
public transport network, particularly in the Harlesden area and around
Chiswick Roundabout and Kew Bridge. The A406 North Circular Road
between Chiswick Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been
reported as the most congested in the UK.7 High levels of congestion are
reflected in problems of poor air quality in these locations8.
0.2.1.20 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability,
and brings associated noise and air quality disbenefits to residents. Figure
5 maps inter peak delay for key west and north west London corridors.
Figure 5: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden – Hendon; Kew – Acton)

High delay on A406
north of Ealing
High delay
between Chiswick
Roundabout and
Kew Bridge
High delay around
Harlesden town
centre and between
Harlesden and
Brent Cross along
A406

Delay measurement is the speed compared to the night time speed (10pm to 6am free flow) measured in minutes per km
Source: Trafficmaster (2016)
7
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799
8
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/annualmaps.asp
10
0.2.1.21 With only committed investment, crowding on the Piccadilly and West
London lines will become severe in the future, adding further barriers to
orbital travel by public transport. This could constrain sustainable housing
and employment growth in Opportunity Areas, Housing Zones and locally-
identified growth and regeneration areas across the sub-region and more
widely.
0.2.1.22 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding.
Furthermore, by providing additional north-south capacity, and alternative
routes avoiding central London, new public transport connectivity could
help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of the
most congested parts of the network. This would deliver more resilience to
the transport network as a whole.
Objectives
0.2.1.23 These challenges highlight the need for a transport intervention in west
and north west London. In response, TfL and the West London Alliance
(WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Scheme objectives
Objective A – New Objective B – Orbital transport Objective C – Public transport
homes & jobs connectivity capacity
Enable the delivery of new Enhance orbital public transport Enhance public transport
homes and jobs in west connectivity to and between capacity in west and north west
and north west London in major trip attractors in west and London to relieve pressure on
line with the principles of north west London (e.g. town existing corridors and ensure the
Good Growth (MTS Policy centres and Opportunity Areas at resilience of the public transport
21) Old Oak/Park Royal, Burnt network as population grows
Oak/Colindale, Brent
Cross/Cricklewood and the
Great West Corridor) to support
mode shift towards active,
efficient and sustainable modes
of transport, and west and north
west London’s continued
economic growth
Strategic options
0.2.1.24 It has been noted that any preferred option must be compliant with the
Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets
Approach and the principles of Good Growth, while delivering a mode shift
to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport. Furthermore, the
preferred option must have the potential to unlock additional new homes,
over and above those being unlocked by other committed schemes.
0.2.1.25 Seven strategic options have been considered: highway capacity
schemes, walk/cycle schemes, enhanced bus priority, bus transit, light rail,
heavy rail and Tube. Heavy rail has the greatest potential to deliver against
the three objectives while ensuring alignment with policy.
11
Table 4: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of

construction and operation
Scheme Alignment Objective A: Objective B: Objective C: Complexity of
intervention with policy New Homes Orbital Public construction
frameworks transport transport and operation
connectivity capacity
Heavy rail Yes High High High Medium
(WLO)
Underground Yes High High High Very High
Bus transit Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium
Light rail Depends on High Medium High High

scope
Enhanced Yes No Medium Low Low
bus priority
Walk/cycle Yes Low Low No Low
schemes
Highway No N/A N/A N/A N/A
capacity
schemes
The case for the WLO

 The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000 new
homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was applied.
 The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office and
6,000 industrial jobs.
 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population able to
access growing employment hubs, such as Old Oak and the Great West Corridor
0.2.1.26 An 8tph option and 4tph sensitivity have been appraised in detail. The
core 8tph option has been fully appraised in this SOBC, alongside a 4tph
sensitivity.
0.2.1.27 The core option is a 4tph Kew Bridge – Hendon and 4tph Hounslow –
West Hampstead service, providing an 8tph service through the central
core as shown in Figure 6. The alternative service pattern is a 4tph
Hounslow – Hendon service as shown in Figure 7.
0.2.1.28 The options considered would be refined further in future business cases.
Figure 6: WLO core option service pattern (8tph)
Figure 7: WLO alternative service pattern (4tph)
12
0.2.1.29 The WLO could enable the delivery of new homes and support
employment growth. A development capacity study was commissioned to
identify potential development and employment that could come forward as
a result of the scheme9. An additional 8,800 residential units could be
unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area, in compliance with the draft new
London Plan and current local planning policy. Applying a flexible
approach to planning, while remaining consistent with the draft new
London Plan, could unlock an additional c. 29,000 residential units,
including through LPAs and the GLA agreeing to intensify the use of
Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the redevelopment of social
housing10.
Table 5: Summary of housing potential by LPA affected by WLO (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)
Local Planning Authority Scenarios
Baseline WLO dependent Maximum development
Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711
Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22
Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609
Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672
Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240
Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489
11
OPDC 19,383 19,383 19,383
Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143
Total 48,016 56,819 77,269
Source: SNC Lavalin
0.2.1.30 Similarly to housing, a new public transport link could support additional
employment capacity along the route.
0.2.1.31 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population
able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park
Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)12.
0.2.1.32 By improving public transport connections, the WLO should also support
employment, particularly in high value SIL areas and play an important role
in maintaining town centre viability more generally across the sub-region.
 The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent
Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas
9
A “bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development potential based on
information from the London Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA). To help
deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is also being
strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a third per of
growth in the form of small sites development.
10
Subject to Resident Ballot Requirement in accordance with Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide
where applicable
11
Development capacity in OPDC already optimised by existing and proposed walking, cycling and
public transport schemes
12
Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old
Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be
served by Brentford and Syon Lane
13
 The WLO would provide a new direct link between town centres and employment
clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area
 The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public transport
journeys across west and north west London and beyond (including Heathrow and
parts of Harrow) by linking eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic
interchange
0.2.1.33 The WLO could address orbital connectivity barriers by bridging the
public transport connectivity gap between north and west London,
providing a direct service between the Hounslow Loop line and the North
London line, and feeding the future strategic interchange at Old Oak. This
could deliver journey time benefits of up to 24 minutes between Brent
Cross West and Ealing Broadway, and up to 20 minutes between
Hounslow and Wembley.
Figure 8: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)
to Watford, Stanmore and Luton Key
to Watford, Stanmore and Luton

New interchanges West London Orbital
London Underground
Hendon
Hendon
enabling journeys Bakerloo
Central
District
Jubilee
between Brent Cross
Metropolitan
Piccadilly
West Other Rail
Brent Cross
West
Thameslink, Jubilee London Overground
Elizabeth line
Thameslink
and Great Western Railway

South Western Railway
London Northwestern Railway
High Speed 2
Bakerloo/Watford Neasden
Neasden DC corridors and

destinations to the
south, without Harlesden
Harlesden
needing to travel via Cricklewood
Cricklewood
central LondonMidlands
to the West
and beyond West
to the West Hampstead
Midlands and beyond West to Stratford
Hampstead
to Stratford
Willesden
Junction
Willesden
Junction
to the West End,

City and Canary
to the West End, Greenford Wharf
City and Canary
Greenford Wharf
Old Oak
to the West End,
Old Oak to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary
to the West End, and Reading Wharf
to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary
and Reading Wharf
Ealing
Broadway
Ealing
Broadway
Hounslow Kew
Bridge
Hounslow Kew to Feltham
Bridge and Staines to Clapham
to Feltham Junction and
and Staines to Clapham Waterloo
Junction and Richmond
Waterloo
Richmond
New direct link between Hounslow Loop and Old Oak,

enabling journeys between Surrey and Old Oak/Park Royal.
 The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing congestion
along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west London
 The WLO could alleviate crowding on congested rail and Tube lines
0.2.1.34 These journey time savings would make public transport more
competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west
London, supporting mode shift and helping to reduce congestion on the
14
road network and improve air quality. Furthermore, by providing

competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO could also
help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections of the
radial public transport network.
Delivering the WLO
0.2.1.35 A high level technical and operational assessment has been conducted
on engineering complexity, constructability, challenges and risks. Although
no ‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, this work has
established some significant challenges to delivering the scheme that
would need to be considered through further work. Further feasibility work
would therefore be required.
0.2.1.36 Key operational and planning constraints relating to stations and
capacity, construction, service trade-offs, rail freight, rail emissions and
planning policy have been identified.
0.2.1.37 It is important to note that the continued development of Old Oak as a
strategic interchange is key to realising many of the connectivity benefits of
the WLO scheme.
0.3 Economic Case
0.3.1.1 Two service patterns have been appraised for the preferred heavy rail
option:
 8tph core option; including 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph
Kew Bridge – Hendon
 4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon
0.3.1.2 In addition to these two service patterns variants, two alternative land use
scenarios have been modelled:
 A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional
8,800 homes)
 A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional
29,300 homes)
0.3.1.3 Total capital cost was calculated as £273m in 2017/18 prices and £179m
over 60 years in 2010 prices and values.
0.3.1.4 Total annual operating costs were calculated as £26.3m and £13.9m in
2018/19 prices respectively for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns.
0.3.1.5 Revenue calculations for each service pattern and service pattern variant
are set out in Table 6.
15
Table 6: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4pth sensitivity including
assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)
8tph Sensitivity: 4tph Alternative Land Use: Alternative Land Use:
WLO dependent Dev Max Dev
Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
passenger Revenue passenger Revenue passenger Revenue passenger Revenue
journeys (2017 journeys (2017 journeys (2017 journeys (2017
prices) prices) prices) prices)
West London 11.47 15.33 7.91 11.87 12.15 16.16 13.33 17.56
Orbital
London -1.20 -1.27 -0.56 -0.58 -1.34 -1.43 -1.46 -1.57
Overground
London -2.75 -7.34 -1.77 -4.69 -3.14 -7.92 -3.67 -9.18
Underground
Crossrail -0.01 1.34 0.05 1.43 -0.08 1.25 -0.20 1.23
National Rail 0.22 -1.59 -0.24 -1.65 0.17 -1.62 0.14 -2.05
(other
services)
Bus -4.42 -4.21 -3.23 -3.23 -4.75 -4.48 -5.62 -5.02
Total 3.31 2.27 2.16 3.15 3.00 1.97 2.53 0.97
sub-total 3.08 3.86 2.41 4.80 2.83 3.59 2.38 3.02
(excluding
franchised
rail)
Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph & 4tph vs Ref Case. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs
Ref Case with alternative land use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per
cent dependent development), the forecast revenue would be higher.
0.3.1.6 For the 8tph service pattern, whilst WLO services themselves are forecast
to generate just over £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after
consideration of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground
services, is a much more modest £2m.
0.3.1.7 For the 4tph service pattern, net revenue is higher (£3m) despite the
revenue directly on WLO services being over 20 per cent lower at just
under £12m. This results from higher levels of abstraction from other
modes (notably bus and London Underground) in the 8tph scenario.
0.3.1.8 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been
used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice
changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding
changes in generalised time due to WLO were calculated and weighted by
demand to represent the journey time benefits of WLO, as shown in Table
7. These include benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the
Reference Case) and new (trips attracted to public transport by WLO)
public transport users.
Table 7: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph scenario, 4tph
sensitivity & alternative land use scenarios, Whole Model benefits
WLO 8tph Sensitivity: WLO Alternative land use Alternative land use
4tph scenario : WLO 8tph + scenario: WLO 8tph + Max
WLO dependent Dev Dev
Existing 178,106 131,450 192,049 233,996
Users
New 13,745 12,165 13,956 14,292
Users
Total 191,850 143,614 206,005 248,289
Source: Railplan
16
0.3.1.9 In addition to these benefits, externalities resulting from an increase in rail

passenger km have been considered and calculated. These impacts are
small compared to other benefits.
0.3.1.10 It is anticipated that the scheme would provide the following non-
monetised benefits:
 Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development
in the vicinity of the scheme
 Social impact, through facilitating new housing development in the
vicinity of the scheme
 Supporting strategic transport planning and policy, in accordance with
the London Plan
 Environmental benefits, by encouraging mode shift from highway to
public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance
between home and job locations
0.3.1.11 Table 8 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the
standard 8tph option, the 4tph sensitivity and the two alternative land use
scenarios. In addition to these options and sensitivities, a further two cost
sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns where
capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible further
costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope.
0.3.1.12 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the
benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This
indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.
refine the options and identify the preferred service pattern.
17
Table 8: Appraisal results (60 years)

8tph Alternative Alternative Cost Service Cost
core land use: land use: sensitivity: level sensitivity:
8tph WLO 8tph Max Dev 8tph +£100m sensitivity: 4tph +£100m
dependent scenario capital cost 4tph capital cost
Dev scenario
Costs and Revenues
Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244
Road Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0
cost saving
Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309
Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553
Incremental Total 66 58 28 66 92 92
Revenue
Total Financial Effect -698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461
(NFE)
Social Benefits
Time Saving (£m) 977 1049 1264 977 731 731
Road Decongestion 67 65 54 67 70 70
(£m)
Accidents (£m) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Greenhouse -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
emissions (£m)
Local Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0
(£m)
Noise (£m) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Benefits (£m) 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799
Benefits
Present Value of 765 765 765 830 488 553
Project Cost (£m) -
including OBU
Net Revenue (£m, 66 58 28 66 92 92
PV)
Indirect Taxation 3 2 2 3 3 3
Loss (£m, PV)
Present Value of 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799
Social Benefit (£m) -
PVB
Present Value of 1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802
Project Benefit (£m)
PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461
NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341
BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7
BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0
Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time
Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values
Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario
Note costs for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as interventions on both northern branches are included
0.4 Commercial Case
0.4.1.1 Assuming the project progresses and further design details are
determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would
incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation
18
and management and the approach to the financing of the project. All
potential suppliers would be expected to be in compliance with the GLA
Group Responsible Procurement Policy.
0.4.1.2 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by
either TfL in the event that any future service were to be operated as part
of the London Overground, or by Network Rail as the owner and provider
of Great Britain’s National Rail infrastructure.
0.4.1.3 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground.
0.5 Financial Case
0.5.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for
optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the
very early nature of this estimate, an 80 per cent adjustment was added to
reach an estimate of £273m13. We have also considered a sensitivity which
increases costs by a further £100m to account for possible further costs
accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Table 9 sets out the
scheme costs in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost
upon completion of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by
WebTag guidance for the generation of the BCR) for both the core
estimate and cost sensitivity.
Table 9: Capital costs
14
Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values
Core estimate £273m £321m £179m
Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m
0.5.1.2 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business
Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the
delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding
would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be
balanced against revenue.
0.5.1.3 The following sources have been considered as options to fund the capital
costs of this scheme:
 Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community
Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned
sites
 Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new
development unlocked by the scheme
 Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions, workplace
parking levies etc.
13
West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP, Oct 2017
14
Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1
19
0.5.1.4 Although the assessed selected funding sources could be sufficient to

cover the costs of the scheme in present value terms, as shown in Figure
9, there would be a time lag in the availability of funding. Further work is
therefore required to confirm and then secure a funding and financing
solution for the scheme.
Figure 9: Cash/debt balance
400,000,000
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
£
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Debt balance Cash balance
Source: WLO Funding Study analysis.
0.5.1.5 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this
scheme:
 Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts,
including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the
affordability of the operating side of the scheme
 Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the
services in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable
 Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non-
farebox income
0.5.1.6 Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are outlined in
Table 10. Station operating costs are not included in this analysis. Four
new stations would require operation15, and assuming and indicative
annual operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance,
utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating
costs.
15
Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be
part of existing operational station by time of opening.
20
Table 10: Annual operating costs

8tph scenario (2018/19 4tph sensitivity (2018/19
prices) prices)
Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m
Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m
Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m
Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m
Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m
Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m
Total £26.3m £13.8m
Source: TfL
0.5.1.7 For the 8tph scenario, an annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset
by revenue abstracted from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of
£4m of net revenue. For the 4tph alternative net revenue is slightly higher
(£5m) due to different levels of abstraction.
0.5.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have
been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to
materially change the operating funding requirement.
0.5.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to passenger revenue of
£4-5m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding requirement
and need for significant operating subsidy. Options to remove any
operating subsidy will need to be identified as part of future phases of
scheme development work. The housing and commercial development
stimulated by WLO could create an opportunity for increased passenger
revenue that could be significant in reducing this. This would be a matter
for further consideration in future stages of the project.
0.6 Management Case
0.6.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have a proven track record of developing, promoting
and implementing significant infrastructure projects and securing consents
required, and would ensure that strong project governance principles are
followed. The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s
established project assurance procedures.
0.6.1.2 The full involvement of the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and
through the WLA would help minimise planning policy and other regulatory
risks.
0.6.1.3 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred
approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has
been identified that the principal consent required to authorise the works
(including land acquisition) is likely to be a Transport and Works Act Order
(TWAO).
0.6.1.4 Table 11 outlines key indicative project milestones.
21
Table 11: Project milestones

Milestone Description Date
Further feasibility 2019-2021
Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022
Construction Early 2020s
Operation  2026 for Phase 1
 2029 for Phase 2
22
1 The Approach to the Business Case

1.1.1.1 The decision making process, of which this Strategic Outline Business
Case forms part, usually takes place in three phases. Each phase includes
the preparation of a business case followed by an investment decision
point. Each business case builds upon that previously prepared. Evidence
is reviewed to ensure that it remains up to date, accurate and relevant. The
current Strategic Outline Business Case is in ‘Phase One” of this iterative
process, with two further future stages of development to follow.
Figure 10: Business Case development phases
Source: DfT
1.1.1.2 The current ‘Phase One’ focuses on articulating the need for the
intervention and summarising the range of options developed and
considered, and:
 is used to set out the strategic fit of the project with achieving relevant
national and London Mayoral and TfL policy objectives;
 confirms the strategic fit and the case for change;
 scopes out the initial investment/intervention proposal; and
 provides details of the project’s overall balance of benefits and costs
against objectives
1.1.1.3 If the project were to progress, ‘Phase Two’ would reconfirm the
conclusions from ‘Phase One’ and concentrate on a more detailed
assessment of the options to find the best solution, culminating the
preparation of an Outline Business Case, which would build on this
Strategic Outline Business Case.
1.1.1.4 The final phase in the process, ‘Phase Three’, would result in the
production of the Full Business Case – this would accompany the
application for powers (including planning consent and land acquisition).
1.1.1.5 This work is being taken forward by TfL in conjunction with the West
London Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) working through the West
London Alliance (WLA) with detailed development of the Business Case
being jointly overseen by TfL and WLA officers.
23
2 Strategic Case
2.1 Description
2.1.1.1 The West London Orbital (WLO) is a proposed rail scheme which aims to
enhance public transport connectivity (in particular orbital connectivity) in
west and north west London16.
2.1.1.2 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as

Proposal 88:
“The Mayor, through TfL, the West London Alliance boroughs and
Network Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new London Overground
‘West London Orbital’ line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood and
Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent Cross.”
2.1.1.3 The role of the Strategic Case is to set out the need for investment for a
transport intervention in west and north west London to enable new homes
and employment space to be built, improve north-south orbital connectivity,
and address congestion and crowding challenges on the transport
network.
2.1.1.4 The strategic case is structured into eight sections

i. Description
ii. Strategic context and the case for change, including the housing,
connectivity and mode shift, and congestion and crowding challenges
facing west London
iii. Objectives for a transport intervention to address these challenges
iv. Overview of existing arrangements and the limitations of the do-nothing
option
v. Scope and service requirements for a transport intervention
vi. Strategic options, including a qualitative assessment of how these could
meet the objectives
vii. The case for the WLO option, demonstrating that the scheme would meet
the objectives, aligns with national, regional and local policy, could be
technically and operationally feasible, and could be delivered.
viii. Overview of key constraints and dependencies
16
West and north west London refers to the West sub-region (LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith &
Fulham, LB Harrow, LB Hillingdon, LB Hounslow) and LB Barnet which lies in the North sub-region.
24
2.2 Strategic context and the case for change
2.2.1 London is growing
2.2.1.1 London is the most productive economic region in the UK. Home to just
over 13 per cent of the UK’s population, it generates around 23 per cent of
the GVA and more than 25 per cent of national tax revenues17. London’s
success means that more people want to live and work in the city.
Population is forecast to grow from 8.7 million today to 10.8 million by
204118. This growth is expected to generate about 6 million additional trips
each day by 2041.
2.2.1.2 Despite its success, London’s future international competitiveness is

threatened by significant transport challenges and a severe housing
shortage. The combination of population and employment growth means
more public transport capacity is needed and more affordable, well-
connected homes must be built. This needs to take place in the context of
environmental challenges, notably London’s poor air quality and national
commitments on carbon reduction. In order to sustain its success in the
face of these challenges, London must become a city where walking,
cycling and public transport becomes the most appealing and practical
choice for many more journeys.
2.2.1.3 These challenges drive the aims of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS).
The MTS, adopted in March 2018, sets out the Mayor’s vision for transport
in London to 2041. Integral to this vision is the aim to reduce car
dependency in favour of walking, cycling and public transport use. This is
stated in Policy 1, which sets the aim for 80 per cent of all trips in London
to be made by these active, efficient and sustainable modes of travel by
2041. The Strategy is underpinned by the Healthy Streets Approach, which
provides the framework for putting human health and experience at the
heart of planning the city.
2.2.1.4 To accommodate the expected rate of population growth, the London

Strategic Housing Market Assessment concludes that to address the
projected growth in households, the Capital needs to deliver 66,000 new
homes every year between now and 2041. In 2017/18 40,000 new homes
were built. This is the highest rate of delivery for over 40 years, but is still
well short of the number required to meet demand.
17
Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018
18
Ibid
25
2.2.1.5 These new homes will need to be delivered following the principles of
Good Growth. This means ensuring that people living in new housing in
central, inner and outer London have travel options other than to drive to
the shops, to school or to work. Supporting Good Growth is critical to
ensuring London becomes a city where walking, cycling and using public
transport is the norm as its population increases to over 10 million.
2.2.2 West and north west London is the UK’s second largest economic
powerhouse
 West and north west London’s economic status and growth potential means
it will have a crucial role in supporting London’s population and employment
growth over the next 25 years
2.2.2.1 Home to major employment clusters including Heathrow, Park Royal and
the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’, west and north west London is the
most significant economic region outside of the CAZ, contributing 20 per
cent to London’s GDP and having the highest productivity per worker out
of any London sub-region19. West London’s employment clusters are home
to agglomerations of major industries, including transport, logistics, pharma
and media. The region acts as the UK’s global gateway through Heathrow,
and will become London’s gateway to the north via HS2 at Old Oak
Common.
2.2.2.2 The Park Royal/A40/Heathrow corridor has high demand for industrial land
use, driven by warehousing and logistics, and airport-related activities. The
London Industrial Land Demand study notes that LB Brent and LB Ealing
have some of the highest levels of net demand for industrial land in
London20. These boroughs have a high concentration of Strategic
Industrial Locations (SIL). This land is critical to the effective functioning to
London’s economy as it can accommodate activities which, by virtue of
their scale, noise, odours, dust, emissions, hours of operation and/or
vehicle movements, can raise tensions with other land uses21.
19
West London Alliance – West London Economic Assessment
20
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ilds_final_report_june_2017.pdf
21
Draft new London Plan
26
Figure 11: Great West Corridor: ‘The Golden Mile’
2.2.2.3 West and north west London is also a region with significant growth
potential. Some of London’s most significant Opportunity Areas, including
Old Oak/Park Royal, which will experience transformational change over
the next decade, are located in the region. In total eight of London’s
Opportunity Areas are located in west and north west London22.
2.2.2.4 These characteristics mean west and north west London will play a critical
role in delivering both the new jobs and homes London needs over the
next 25 years. However, in order to fulfil its potential both for London and
UK plc, it needs a transport network that can support population and
employment growth in a sustainable way.
2.2.3 Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser

development and employment growth in west and north west London
 New public transport connections are needed to make parts of west and
north west London viable places to build additional homes and workspaces
 Better connectivity between Opportunity Areas and existing town centres and
employment clusters will increase and spread the benefits of sustainable
growth across the sub-region
2.2.3.1 The draft new London Plan and LPA local plans recognise the need to
significantly increase housing delivery to meet the Capital’s needs. This is
22
Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Great West Corridor, Harrow & Wealdstone, Old
Oak/Park Royal, Southall, Wembley, White City
27
a pressing issue for all of London but particularly in outer London where 63
per cent of London’s population growth to 2041 is expected23 and 55 per
cent of London’s new homes need to be delivered24. Population growth is
expected across outer London, with notable pressures between LB Barnet
and LB Hounslow in west and north west London, as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Population growth 2017 - 2041
High population growth is

projected for outer London areas,
notably around Old Oak, Brent
Cross, Hendon and Wembley

Source: Housing-led population forecast, GLA 2016-based demographic projections
2.2.3.2 Table 12 shows that each of the four boroughs along the arc from LB
Barnet to LB Hounslow is projected to see population growth of between
60,000 and 100,000 in the period to 2041. These four boroughs collectively
account for 14.5 per cent of London’s forecast population growth.
Table 12: Population forecasts – selected boroughs in west and north west London
Borough 2016 Population 2041 Population % increase
(projected)
Barnet 386,200 485,800 26 %
Brent 329,100 394,500 20 %
Ealing 343,500 405,600 18 %
Hounslow 271,500 331,200 22 %
Source: GLA Central Trend 2016-based
2.2.3.3 The draft new London Plan proposes ambitious housing delivery targets
for west and north west London, in particular for the five LPAs along the
23
GLA central projection (2016-base)
24
Draft new London Plan (2017)
28
arc stretching between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow, with ten year

completion targets totalling 124,000 for these boroughs and the OPDC.
Table 13: Draft London Plan 10-year housing targets (2019/20 – 2028/29) – selected LPAs in
west and north west London
Local Planning Authority 10-year housing target
Barnet 31,340
Brent 29,150
Ealing 28,070
Hounslow 21,820
OPDC 13,670
Source: Draft new London Plan (Table 4.1)
2.2.3.4 High employee-job growth is also expected across west and north west
London as shown in Figure 13. There is projected to be 146,000 new
employee jobs in west and north west London by 2041.
Figure 13: Employee jobs growth 2016 - 2041
High employee job growth in some outer

London boroughs, particularly in the west
and north west (LB Hounslow, LB
Hillingdon, LB Barnet)

Source: GLA employee jobs projections 2016-2041
2.2.3.5 New public transport connections are important to make parts of London
viable places to build homes and workspaces for the first time, or at
increased densities. Enhanced public transport capacity can enable
existing neighbourhoods and employment clusters to grow.
2.2.3.6 There are five Opportunity Areas lying along the arc between LB Barnet
and LB Hounslow as shown in Figure 14. There are also designated
Housing Zones25 at Wembley (2,840 new homes) and Hounslow Town
25
In partnership with London boroughs, the Mayor has designated 30 Housing Zones as part of his
Housing Strategy. A total of £600 million in funding has been made available for the construction of
75,000 new homes in these zones; the programme will also provide 150,000 associated jobs.
29
Centre (3,900 new homes) and a range of locally-identified and designated

regeneration areas here. At present these areas are poorly connected to
each other, meaning new residents would find it difficult to access most of
the services, and employment and leisure opportunities in neighbouring
areas, despite the relatively short distances between them. This could
constrain growth in the longer-term, either due to new developments
adding to traffic congestion, or sites becoming less attractive to developers
due to poor connectivity.
Figure 14: Opportunity Areas in west and north west London
An arc of growth potential
stretches across west
and north west London
from Brent Cross towards
Hounslow, incorporating
Burnt Oak/Colindale,
Brent Cross/Cricklewood,
Wembley, Old Oak/Park
Royal and Great West
Corridor Opportunity
Areas.

Source: GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary
2.2.3.7 Improving public transport connectivity between these areas will allow
them to develop as an interconnected regional network, enabling new
employment centres to be supported by nearby new residential
neighbourhoods across west and north west London. This could reduce
dependency on car travel within the sub-region, and pressure on heavily
used radial rail links to central London. This will help to deliver new homes
and develop the Opportunity Areas, Home Zones and local regeneration
priority areas to their full potential and help to drive economic growth
across the sub-region.
30
2.2.3.8 Between these Opportunity Areas there are Metropolitan town centres at
Ealing and Hounslow, the Major town centre of Wembley, District town
centres at Cricklewood, Harlesden, Neasden, Acton and Brentford,
London’s largest area of concentrated industrial activity at Park Royal, and
high volumes of transport and logistics, and creative, media and
broadcasting jobs along the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’. While
employment growth will continue to be highest in the Central Activities
Zone (CAZ), high growth in employee jobs is also forecast for several west
and north west London boroughs and much of this will take place in these
town centres and employment clusters. This growth relies on maintaining
and improving a well-connected local and sub-regional transport network.
2.2.3.9 The success of these regional employment centres depends on easy

access to employees and customers. It is therefore vital that residents from
across the sub-region can access these centres using active, efficient and
sustainable modes, and that well-connected new homes are delivered
across the sub-region for the employees and customers who will sustain
these centres’ continued economic success.
2.2.4 Poor orbital connectivity is a constraint on mode shift in west and north
west London
 New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between

Brent Cross/Cricklewood and Burnt Oak/Colindale Opportunity Areas and the
Old Oak/Park Royal and Wembley Opportunity Areas, particularly as these
places experience transformational growth
 Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters

(including the Great West Corridor) in LB Hounslow and areas to the north,
including Old Oak/Park Royal Opportunity Area, to ensure these areas can
continue to grow sustainably
 Connecting existing radial rail routes to fast, reliable orbital public transport
services would enable commuters from outside of London to access existing
and growing employment clusters across west and north west London by
public transport rather than by car
Mode share and connectivity context

2.2.4.1 Within outer London, around 60 per cent of trips are made by walking,
cycling and public transport. In order to achieve the MTS mode shift aim,
this will need to rise to 75 per cent in the context of 1 million additional trips
being made every day.
31
2.2.4.2 70 per cent of these car trips are short enough to feasibly be switched to
walking, cycling or public transport26, but such a switch is dependent on
new or more appealing alternatives being provided. Therefore, providing
an attractive public transport alternative for trips currently made by car will
be crucial to achieving these aims. This means improving links to outer
London town centres and ensuring new developments are designed and
connected in a way that reduces the need to travel by car.
Figure 15: Mode shares for travel within and between central, inner, outer and outside
London
Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018
2.2.4.3 As shown in Table 14, car ownership in west London is the second highest
out of London’s five sub-regions27. Car ownership is associated with lower
sustainable mode share28. Car dependency means the sub-region has the
second lowest active, efficient and sustainable mode share in London, at
only 57 per cent.
Table 14: Car ownership and active, efficient and sustainable mode share by TfL sub-region
Sub-region Car ownership Active, efficient and sustainable mode share
South 70% 54%

West 61% 57%
North 59% 58%
East 56% 63%
Central 37% 83%
Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17)
2.2.4.4 In order to achieve the MTS overall aim for 80 per cent of trips to be made
by active, efficient and sustainable modes, boroughs across west and
north west London must see significant mode shift over the next two
decades, as shown in Table 15. This will necessitate improved public
26
LTDS 2014/15 – 2016/17
27
The TfL West London sub-region comprises LB Brent, LB Ealing, LB Hammersmith and Fulham, LB
Harrow, LB Hillingdon and LB Hounslow. LB Barnet is in the North London sub-region.
28
LTDS
32
transport connectivity throughout the entire sub-region, so that journey

times are more competitive versus the car.
Table 15: Walking, cycling and public transport % mode share by borough resident based on
average daily trips
Borough Observed Trajectory
2012/13 to 2013/14 to 2014/15 to 2021 2041
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Hammersmith & 75 78 81 82 89
Fulham
Barnet 50 52 55 59 72
Brent 62 62 65 66 78
Ealing 62 62 63 63 76
Harrow 48 48 48 50 64
Hillingdon 43 41 43 44 56
Hounslow 55 53 56 59 71
Source: LTDS (2014/15 – 2016/17), TfL Strategic Models (consistent with MTS evidence base 2018)
2.2.4.5 The opening of the Elizabeth line will bring about a step-change
improvement in radial connectivity between west London and the CAZ and
Isle of Dogs. Associated changes to the bus network will improve links to
Elizabeth line stations, thereby securing an improvement in connectivity for
origin-destination pairs within the sub-region with a radial element.
However north-south connectivity between town centres in the north of the
sub-region such as Wembley and Brent Cross, and those in the south such
as Hounslow, will not benefit in as significant a way. Similarly, while Ealing
and Acton will both benefit greatly from improved radial connectivity
through the CAZ and beyond, the Elizabeth line will not bring any
appreciable journey time benefits for trips from these town centres to less
distant District town centres such as Neasden and Brent Cross.
2.2.4.6 Comparing current journey times with forecast journey times when
committed improvements are delivered shows that the north-south corridor
will see little improvement at either end (Figure 16).
33
Figure 16: Public transport journey time change Harlesden and Brentford town centres
(2031)

2.2.4.7 While committed schemes will improve connectivity within the sub-region,
particularly for radial trips, they will not address critical north-south orbital
connectivity challenges. This includes issues relating to severance caused
by roads and rail lines, gaps in the public transport network, and limited
interchange opportunities. Broadly this can be broken down into three
specific connectivity challenges:
34
 Connectivity between west and north west London, relating to

severance and gaps in the public transport network
 Connectivity between the Hounslow Loop and North London line,
relating to severance and limited interchange opportunities
 Connectivity from radial corridors to destinations in the wider sub-
region, relating to gaps in the public transport network and limited
interchange opportunities
Connectivity between west and north west London
2.2.4.8 At the northern end of the corridor, there is a gap in orbital public transport
provision between west London and north west London principally
between LB Barnet and the rest of west London. This gap in orbital public
transport provision stretches across LB Brent and the M1 into LB Barnet,
where the only public transport option available is the bus.
2.2.4.9 Figure 17 shows how public transport journey times deteriorate rapidly
when moving across this corridor. From Hendon, journey times to Acton
are comparable to those to Stratford, despite the latter being considerably
further away. Similarly from Harlesden, journey times to the Brent Cross
area are comparable to those to Southfields, despite the latter being twice
the distance and south of the River Thames.
2.2.4.10 These discrepancies can be partly explained by the existence of orbital

rail links, such as the North London Line, Gospel Oak – Barking Line and
West London Line which demonstrates the impact of orbital rail on public
transport connectivity.
2.2.4.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas where
significant housing growth is expected in north London, particularly around
Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment
centre at Old Oak/Park Royal. Growth in these areas could be
complementary, with significant housing growth expected in the former,
and employment growth in the latter. As a result, a strong pull may emerge
between the locations. It is therefore vital that a competitive public
transport option is provided to ensure that new trips are made by active,
efficient and sustainable modes, and maximise the social and economic
benefits of this growth.
2.2.4.12 Poor connectivity between Old Oak and parts of north west London will
also limit its potential to be a gateway station for north west London when
HS2 is delivered, forcing customers to travel to Euston instead. This will
increase pressure on both Euston station itself, and the lines serving it.
Similarly, customers travelling by public transport towards Heathrow from
locations such as Brent Cross/Cricklewood would need to travel via central
35
London to access the Elizabeth line, which is less direct and adds further
pressure onto radial routes into central London.
2.2.4.13 Furthermore, existing residents in north London currently have poor
access to the shopping and leisure opportunities at Wembley and
residents of west London have poor access to the shopping and leisure
opportunities at Brent Cross. This limits choice for residents and access to
customers and employees for businesses in both locations.
Figure 17: Journey times by public transport from Hendon and Harlesden town centres
Stratford
It takes the same time
Acton to travel from Hendon
to Acton (9.5km) as it
does to Stratford (16
km)
Brent Cross
It takes the same

time to travel from
Harlesden to Brent
Cross (5km) as it
does to Southfields
(10km)
Southfields

36
Connectivity between Hounslow Loop and North London line
2.2.4.14 At the southern end of the corridor, orbital connectivity is hindered by

poor interchange options. Interchange options between radial routes, such
as the Hounslow Loop Line, and existing orbital rail such as the North
London Line are limited. This forces passengers to travel out of their way
to interchange at Clapham Junction or Richmond, or make additional bus
stages to connect to the London Overground network in the Kew area, as
demonstrated by Figure 18.
Figure 18: Route options for customers travelling north from Hounslow Loop area
In the absence of direct

interchange to the North
London Line, passengers
beginning their journeys at
stations between Hounslow
and Brentford must either
back-track to Richmond or
take a bus to Gunnersbury to
access a north-south rail link
Passengers east of
Gunnersbury must back-track
to Clapham Junction as there
are no bus alternatives
Source: TfL
2.2.4.15 This limits public transport connectivity to the emerging employment hubs
at Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor. Residents of LB
Hounslow in particular would have to make indirect journeys to access
employment opportunities at Old Oak/Park Royal by public transport, while
residents in growing neighbourhoods further north such as North Acton
would not have competitive public transport options to access jobs in the
nearby Great West Corridor. This could have negative implications for
mode share as these employment centres grow, or act as a brake on
development if businesses find it increasingly difficult to access customers
and employees.
2.2.4.16 Figure 19 shows that poor north-south orbital connectivity similarly

creates a barrier to movement on the step-free network. The requirement
37
to make complicated interchanges, in particular for journeys from the area

served by the Hounslow Loop Line to the north of the sub-region which
often requires rail-bus-rail combinations, also acts as a barrier to travel.
For trips from Brentford towards LB Brent and LB Barnet, where journey
times are already comparatively slow, journey times on the step-free
network are around 10 minutes slower.
Figure 19: Public transport step-free journey time difference from Brentford town centre

Connectivity between radial corridors and the wider sub-region
2.2.4.17 For longer-distance trips within the sub-region, the public transport
network is limited by a lack of orbital public transport provision to link the
high-capacity radial lines together, meaning the public transport operates
as a series of corridors oriented towards central London rather than a sub-
regional system. For longer-distance trips between places on different
radial corridors (e.g. Harrow to Great West Corridor, or Edgware to Park
Royal), the only public transport option might be to travel via central
London and then backtrack, or to combine multiple indirect bus and Tube
journeys. This in turn leads to more people either choosing to travel by car,
or being unable to make the journey (and therefore unable to access the
full array of employment, leisure and social opportunities in the wider sub-
region).
2.2.4.18 Poor orbital public transport connectivity also increases car dependency
for non-London originating trips. North and west London boroughs have
some of the highest volumes of in-commuting outside of central London.
38
LB Hounslow attracts 26,000 in-commuters from the Wider South East,

comparable to LB Islington. LB Barnet attracts over 15,000 in-commuters
from the Wider South East, more than LB Lambeth in central London29.
2.2.4.19 The car is dominant for these trips. Rail can usually only compete where
origin and destination are directly served, as otherwise most trips would
require interchange at a central London terminus.
2.2.4.20 For these types of trip to be competitive by public transport, existing high
frequency radial rail routes would need to connect to fast, reliable orbital
public transport services at locations in outer London, in order to avoid the
fare, journey time and crowding disbenefits arising from having to back-
track via central London. This is critical to ensure employment growth in
the sub-region does not exacerbate congestion, and to ensure broader
access to employment, leisure and social opportunities for those who rely
on public transport to get around.
2.2.5 Improved orbital public transport connectivity and capacity is needed to

address congestion and crowding in west and north west London
 A competitive public transport alternative is needed for north-south trips to
reduce congestion on the road network in west and north west London
 Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate

pressure on the Piccadilly line and sections of the North and West London
lines
2.2.5.1 As a result of poor orbital connectivity, many north-south movements in

north west London must be made by car, even for relatively short journeys.
A consequence of this is high levels of congestion, particularly where there
are gaps in the public transport network.
2.2.5.2 There are only six north-south road crossings between Willesden Junction
and Harrow, a distance of over 8km. Between them these routes must
cater for over 200,000 motor vehicle movements every day30. Limited
north-south routes create bottlenecks with high levels of delay around the
North Circular/A5 and Harlesden, even in the inter-peak as shown in
Figure 20.
2.2.5.3 Further south, average delay is significant in Acton and between Chiswick
Roundabout and Kew Bridge, adding to journey times for trips between LB
Hounslow and the central and northern parts of the sub-region, as shown
in Figure 21, and the A406 North Circular Road between Chiswick
29
Census 2011
30
TfL Radial Screenline (2015)
39
Roundabout and Hanger Lane has recently been reported as the most
congested in the UK.31
Figure 20: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden - Hendon)
High delay around
Harlesden town centre
and between Harlesden
and Brent Cross along
A406

Figure 21: Inter peak traffic delay (Kew – Acton)
High delay on A406 north
of Ealing
High delay between

Chiswick Roundabout
and Kew Bridge

31
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47175799
40
2.2.5.4 Delay on the road network is detrimental to bus speeds and reliability,
which makes public transport a less attractive option. This in turn
encourages greater car dependency. It also affects overall public transport
resource requirements, as more buses are required to maintain route
frequency.
2.2.5.5 Congestion also causes associated environmental, social and economic

disbenefits. Residents across west London, particularly those living near
major roads, experience noise and air quality disbenefits. Longer journey
times carry an economic cost, as does the impact of congestion on the
efficiency of freight.
2.2.5.6 Figure 22 shows that, with only committed investment, crowding on radial
corridors including the District and Piccadilly lines, as well as sections of
the orbital North and West London lines, will become severe in the future.
This will add further barriers to orbital travel by public transport and could
constrain sustainable housing and employment growth in Opportunity
Areas, Housing Zones and locally-identified growth and regeneration areas
across the sub-region.
Figure 22: Crowding on the rail and Tube network, 2041, morning peak, with only committed
investment
Crowding
forecast to be
severe on
Piccadilly and
District line
radials, and
sections of
the North and
West London
lines
2.2.5.7 Additional orbital public transport capacity could relieve this crowding. The
addition of new north-south capacity and connectivity would also enable
41
many trips to be made by alternative routes that avoid central London. This
could help alleviate pressure on central London interchanges and some of
the most congested parts of the network, strengthening the resilience of
the transport network as a whole.
2.2.5.8 Furthermore, by improving orbital public transport connectivity, more trips

would become competitive by public transport in the first place, resulting in
fewer car trips and reduced congestion. This would deliver journey time
benefits for bus passengers and noise and air quality benefits for
residents.
42
2.3 Objectives and Benefits criteria

2.3.1.1 The challenges outlined above highlight the need for a transport
intervention in west and north west London. In response, TfL and the West
London Alliance (WLA) have developed three objectives, as shown in
Table 16.
Table 16: Scheme objectives
Objectives Main benefits by stakeholder Contribution towards

group national and regional
policy
Objective A – New homes & jobs Londoners Supports National Planning

Policy Framework (NPFF)
Enable the delivery of new homes and Additional new homes and objectives of delivering a
jobs in west and north west London in jobs enabled sufficient supply of homes
line with the principles of Good Growth and supporting sustainable
(MTS Policy 21) Residents
economic growth fit for the
st
Reduced traffic congestion 21 century
associated with growth
Supports Mayor’s Transport
Strategy (MTS) Policy 21
and Draft new London Plan
policies GG2, GG4, GG5,
SD1 & T2
Objective B – Orbital transport Residents Supports NPPF objectives

connectivity of building a strong,
Journey time benefits to key competitive economy,
Enhance orbital public transport destinations; Improved ensuring the vitality of town
connectivity to and between major trip connectivity to jobs; Reduced centres and promoting
attractors in west and north west traffic congestion; Improved air sustainable transport
London (e.g. town centres and quality; Health benefits
Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Supports MTS Policies 1 &
Royal, Burnt Oak/Colindale, Brent Business 14, Draft new London Plan
Cross/Cricklewood and the Great West Policy GG2 and the London
Improved access to
Corridor) to support mode shift towards Environment Strategy
customers/clients; Economic
active, efficient and sustainable modes
growth Delivers MTS Proposal 88
of transport, and west and north west
London’s continued economic growth and supports MTS Proposal
67
Objective C – Public transport Passengers Supports NPPF objective of

capacity promoting sustainable
Crowding benefits; Improved transport
Enhance public transport capacity in journey options
west and north west London to relieve Supports MTS Policy 16
pressure on existing corridors and
ensure the resilience of the public
transport network as population grows
43
2.4 Existing Arrangements and Business Needs

2.4.1.1 As outlined in Section 2.2 above, the current situation (do-nothing option)
would result in continued poor orbital connectivity in west and north west
London as committed schemes are primarily radially focussed. This could
act as a constraint on delivering the homes needed to accommodate the
growing population or the commercial development needed to
accommodate employment growth. It could also lead to detrimental
unintended consequences of growth such as highway congestion on non-
radial links, and increasing pressure on a public transport network that is
already under strain.
2.5 Potential Scope and Service Requirements

2.5.1.1 When addressing the objectives outlined in Section 2.3, it has been
assumed that any preferred option must be compliant with the Mayor’s
Transport Strategy. This means aligning with the Healthy Streets Approach
and the principles of Good Growth while delivering a mode shift to active,
efficient and sustainable modes. It must also support the delivery of LPA
local plans and other policies which have similar objectives.
2.5.1.2 Furthermore, the preferred option must have the potential to deliver on
shared Mayoral/West London LPA objectives by unlocking additional new
homes, over and above those being unlocked by committed schemes.
2.6 Strategic Options

2.6.1 Strategic Options overview
2.6.1.1 The West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints study32,

commissioned by the West London Alliance, identified the costs of
constraints to the sub-regional economy and identified a long-list of 28
potential scheme interventions to address the major infrastructure
constraints across the sub-region under the themes of highway network
enhancements (7 schemes), bus network enhancements (5 schemes), and
rail network enhancements (16 schemes). Each potential intervention was
appraised against five policy criteria (economic impact, orbital connectivity,
growth area connectivity, physical deliverability, value for money) and
whether it was dependent on or complementary to another intervention.
This appraisal was used to prioritise the interventions to provide a short-list
of those that were considered most likely to support the future growth of
the west London sub-region and to be realistically deliverable. Schemes
32
West London Transport Infrastructure Constraints – Outcomes Report (West London Alliance, 2017)
44
were then grouped into packages and prioritised as shown in Table 17

below.
Table 17: West London Transport packages (WLA)
Source: West London Alliance (2017)
2.6.1.2 The appraisal concluded that the package P3 (consisting of re-introducing

passenger services on the Dudding Hill Rail Line, and associated junction
improvements at Neasden and Acton East), was the highest priority.
2.6.1.3 As this appraisal was conducted in a different policy context (the new MTS
was adopted in March 2018), six types of intervention which could help to
address the orbital connectivity, growth and capacity challenges in west
London outlined above have been reconsidered below.
2.6.2 Highway capacity schemes
2.6.2.1 Orbital highway capacity schemes would not deliver mode shift to active,
efficient and sustainable modes in line with the Mayor’s Transport
Strategy. They also scored relatively poorly in the WLA assessment. For
these reasons they are not considered further.
45
2.6.3 Walk/cycle schemes

2.6.3.1 Active travel aligns strongly with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and
compares strongly against other modes for shorter trips. At the London-
wide level for trips of less than 2km there are more walk trips than car-
driver trips and more cycle trips than rail trips33. Addressing the severance
caused by rail lines and the A40 would enable more north-south trips to be
made by walking and cycling in the sub-region.
2.6.3.2 For longer trips, active travel alone is unlikely to be competitive versus the
car. Furthermore, active travel schemes cannot by themselves unlock new
homes at the same scale as public transport schemes, and would not
enhance public transport capacity in the sub-region. Nevertheless, active
travel would still have a supporting role in any public transport intervention,
as all public transport journeys require access and egress to/from the
public transport service. It is assumed that active travel would play that
supporting role in the public transport options considered below.
2.6.4 Enhanced bus priority

2.6.4.1 A combination of bus lanes, bus gates and parking restrictions could
deliver journey time savings for public transport passengers. Existing bus
priority in the area is mostly along radial routes as shown in Figure 23.
2.6.4.2 TfL and WestTrans have investigated enhanced bus priority for the corridor
between Ealing and Brent Cross, which would address some of the
connectivity challenges in the north-eastern part of the sub-region, notably
orbital severance across LB Brent.
2.6.4.3 Light-touch bus priority would be relatively low cost and benefits would be
spread across all bus journeys operating along affected links. Some
highway capacity trade-offs would be required. Journey time and
connectivity benefits arising from individual interventions would be felt over
a relatively small area, with longer journeys still requiring interchange to
existing orbital rail services for part of the journey.
2.6.4.4 At the London-wide level, bus is the most popular mode of public transport
for trips up to 5km, but is overtaken by rail for longer trips34. Key origin-
destination (OD) pairs exceeding this distance within the sub-region
include Brent Cross – Ealing (7.5km) and Brentford (for Great West
Corridor) to Old Oak (6.5km). It is unlikely that bus priority would enable
these OD pairs to be served competitively.
33
LTDS
34
Ibid
46
Figure 23: Bus lanes in west and north west London
The corridor is served by a

dense network of over 70
bus routes in total, many
of which could benefit
from enhanced bus priority
at key pinch points.
Existing bus lanes are
primarily radially focused,
providing limited journey
time benefits for north-
south movements.

Source: TfL, GLA; Great West Corridor shows draft boundary
2.6.4.5 While enhanced bus priority could benefit orbital connectivity at a local
level, it would not by itself unlock new homes and commercial
development and would have a limited impact on public transport capacity
more generally.
2.6.5 Bus transit

2.6.5.1 A combination of more significant interventions on the road network
including reallocation of roadspace to bus passengers and/or repurposing
lightly used rail lines could allow for the development of bus transit,
supported by express (limited stop) purpose designed bus services.
2.6.5.2 Bus transit delivers superior journey time benefits to light-touch bus priority
measures while maintaining the service planning flexibility of the bus.
Additionally, due to the large amounts of segregation along the route, it
also improves reliability.
2.6.5.3 Due to the flexibility of a bus transit service, this public transport
intervention could connect town centres across west London, such as
Ealing, Wembley and Brent. Figure 24 illustrates potential bus transit
corridors between Brent Cross, Wembley, Ealing and Gunnersbury.
47
Highway capacity trade-offs would be required to deliver this, and longer

journeys would require interchange to existing rail services.
2.6.5.4 Bus transit would benefit orbital connectivity, and could help unlock some
new homes and employment capacity by improving public transport
capacity. Although benefits delivered through a transit solution could be
significant, it is likely that they would be lower than those delivered by a rail
option.
Figure 24: Potential bus transit corridors (Brent Cross – Wembley – Ealing – Gunnersbury)
A bus transit scheme
could link Brent to Ealing
via Wembley, with an
option to extend to
Gunnersbury and Kew to
connect with the North
London Line and
Hounslow Loop.

2.6.5.5 The option outlined above would directly connect several town centres and
growth areas in the corridor. Additionally, as the route of the transit has
more flexibility in comparison to a rail option, this route can also serve the
Wembley Opportunity Area directly. A notable weakness of this option is
the failure to connect directly to Old Oak, the single biggest Opportunity
Area in west and north west London, and the resulting network effect of
this emerging strategic interchange. This would limit the potential to spread
connectivity benefits across the wider sub-region. Any direct connection to
Old Oak would increase the length of the route, meaning less direct and
less competitive journey times for other origin-destination pairs.
48
2.6.5.6 TfL has also considered conceptual options for bus transit and related
interventions along the A4 between Chiswick Roundabout and Gillette
Corner. While this would enhance connectivity to the Great West Corridor,
its impact on orbital connectivity would be more limited as interchange to
the North London line would be required at South Acton or Gunnersbury
for longer journeys.
2.6.5.7 A bus transit solution would bring benefits to the area by helping to
improve the reliability and quality of orbital travel in west London, however
due to the quantum of new homes envisaged for the region, bus transit
alone cannot provide sufficient capacity. Bus transit would also offer less
attractive journey times than rail over longer distances in this context.
Nevertheless, the benefits of bus services are recognised and both
improved bus priority and implementation of bus transit could be included
in a wider package of transport improvements.
2.6.6 Light rail

2.6.6.1 Light rail could be introduced using existing lightly used rail freight
alignments such as the Dudding Hill line as shown in Figure 25.
2.6.6.2 This would have an impact on existing freight services. Freight trains can
share track with passenger trams under very limited circumstances, but
there are onerous safety consideration to be addressed, which it may not
be possible to satisfactorily overcome. The MTS emphasises the need for
careful planning to make best use of rail capacity for both passenger and
freight services and the scope of a light rail scheme would need to be
defined to align with this.
2.6.6.3 A tram option would also require either sharing or reallocating street space
to bring services into the heart of town centres and growth areas. If this
cannot be achieved, journeys to Wembley and Ealing would require
interchange at Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. Extending services south
towards the Great West Corridor would encounter similar constraints to co-
running with heavy rail, but on a much busier section of track. This would
deliver orbital connectivity benefits, help to unlock new homes and
enhance public transport capacity, but requires significant delivery
challenges to be overcome.
49
Figure 25: Dudding Hill line
The Dudding Hill line,

converted to a tramway,
would form the core of a
tram network linking Brent
Cross, Wembley and Old
Oak/Park Royal.

Figure 26: Dudding Hill Junction
50
2.6.7 Heavy rail

2.6.7.1 The West London Alliance identified several freight and disused rail lines in
the sub-region that could, theoretically, facilitate alternative passenger
service routes. The Dudding Hill line performed strongest of these in terms
of orbital connectivity and Opportunity Area connectivity as it bridges the
orbital public transport connectivity gap across between LB Ealing and LB
Barnet (across LB Brent), and directly connects the Opportunity Area at
Brent Cross/Cricklewood with Old Oak and points to the south. It is
therefore considered as a central component of the heavy rail option
below.
2.6.7.2 The heavy rail option would involve using existing orbital passenger
corridors (part of the London Overground network), combined with lightly
used freight lines (Dudding Hill line) to create a continuous rail link from the
north eastern part of the sub-region to the south. This would form the West
London Orbital line (WLO), running from the Thameslink corridor in the
Brent Cross/Cricklewood area to the Hounslow Loop, via the Dudding Hill
line and the North London line. This option would use existing
infrastructure and link into the existing London Overground network.
Figure 27: West London Orbital line (as described in MTS 2018)
The West London Orbital
line would run from the
Thameslink corridor in the
Brent Cross/Cricklewood
area to the Hounslow
Loop, via the Dudding Hill
line and the North London
line.

51
Figure 28: Dudding Hill line at Neasden
2.6.7.3 The alignment would directly connect three Opportunity Areas at Brent
Cross/Cricklewood, Old Oak/Park Royal and the Great West Corridor.
Connections to Wembley and Ealing would be indirect but journey times
would still be competitive via interchange to high frequency rail services at
Neasden, Harlesden or Old Oak. The retention of the Dudding Hill line as a
heavy rail line avoids the negative implications for freight associated with
the light rail option while delivering additional journey time benefits over
bus schemes, enabling connectivity benefits to be realised over a wider
area.
2.6.7.4 The WLO scheme has been identified in the MTS as having the potential
to unlock new homes and jobs in west London. It would bring orbital
connectivity benefits across a wide area and would significantly enhance
public transport capacity in the sub-region. The scheme could also be
delivered using existing infrastructure across several sections based on
similar principles to those used in successful development of much of the
Overground network.
2.6.7.5 The scheme would attract significant stakeholder support. LPAs have
already expressed support for the scheme during the consultation on the
Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
52
2.6.8 Underground
2.6.8.1 A north-south London Underground extension between Brent
Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow could cover a similar geographic area to
the heavy rail option, but would be less constrained by existing
infrastructure and therefore could run closer to town centres along the
corridor.
2.6.8.2 A London Underground scheme would enable higher frequencies, and

therefore deliver enhanced capacity and connectivity benefits vis-à-vis the
heavy rail option. However this would require considerably higher capital
spend and raise more physical deliverability challenges than the heavy rail
or bus options.
Figure 29: Indicative corridor for London Underground extension between Brent
Cross/Cricklewood and Hounslow

2.6.9 Qualitative assessment

2.6.9.1 Table 18 qualitatively assesses each of the potential schemes against
national, regional and local policy and indicates that most would be in
alignment. Light Rail would only align if the scope included maintaining
freight paths on shared sections of track. Highway capacity schemes
would not align with transport or planning policy.
53
Table 18: Alignment of options with national, regional and local policy
Scheme National Planning Mayor’s Draft new London Local planning
intervention Policy Framework Transport Plan policy
Strategy
Heavy rail Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in
sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the LPA local plans and
homes, building a (mode shift), 16 best use of land), OAPFs, including
strong, competitive (rail capacity) & GG4 (delivering the Principle T1 (rail &
economy, ensuring the 21 (Good homes Londoners underground) of Old
vitality of town centres Growth). need) & T1 Oak Park Royal
and promoting (strategic approach OAPF.
sustainable transport. Delivers to transport).
proposal 88
(West London
Orbital)
Underground Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in
sufficient supply of Policies 1 GG2 (making the local plans and
homes, building a (mode shift), 16 best use of land), OAPFs.
strong, competitive (rail capacity) & GG4 (delivering the
economy, ensuring the 21 (Good homes Londoners
vitality of town centres Growth). need) & T1
and promoting (strategic approach
sustainable transport. to transport).
Bus transit Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in
homes, building a (mode shift), 15 best use of land), OAPFs, including
strong, competitive (transform the GG4 (delivering the Principle T5 (buses) of
economy, ensuring the bus network) & homes Londoners Old Oak Park Royal
vitality of town centres 21 (Good need) & T1 OAPF (pending final
and promoting Growth). (strategic approach alignment).
sustainable transport. to transport).
Light rail Supports delivering a Aligns with Supports Policy Aligns with priorities in
homes, building a (mode shift) & best use of land), OAPFs.
strong, competitive 21 (Good GG4 (delivering the
economy, ensuring the Growth). homes Londoners
vitality of town centres need) & T1
and promoting Potential (strategic approach
sustainable transport. conflict with to transport).
Proposal 18
(rail freight).
Enhanced bus Supports building a Aligns with Supports Policy T1 Aligns with priorities in
priority strong, competitive Policies 1 (strategic approach local plans and
economy, ensuring the (mode shift), 15 to transport). OAPFs, including
vitality of town centres (transform the Principle T5 (buses) of
and promoting bus network) & Old Oak Park Royal
sustainable transport. 21 (Good OAPF.
Growth).
54
Scheme National Planning Mayor’s Draft new London Local planning

intervention Policy Framework Transport Plan policy
Strategy
Walk/cycle Supports, ensuring the Aligns with Supports Policy T1 Aligns with priorities in
schemes vitality of town centres Policies 1 (strategic approach local plans and
and promoting (mode shift), 2 to transport) & T5 OAPFs, including
sustainable transport. (walking and (cycling). Principle T6 (walking
cycling) & 21 and cycling) of Old
(Good Growth). Oak Park Royal
OAPF.
Highway Does not promote Does not align Does not align with Aligns with Principle
capacity sustainable transport. with Policy 1 Policy T1 (strategic T2 (roads) of Old Oak
schemes (mode shift). approach to Park Royal OAPF but
transport). does not align with
Not aligned with local plan priorities of
Healthy Streets promoting sustainable
Approach. travel.
2.6.9.2 Table 19 summarises the policy appraisal above and further appraises
against each of the three schemes, objectives and complexity of
construction and operation.
2.6.9.3 The qualitative assessment is relative. The performance of each option is

considered relative to all other options. Where an option performs strongly
relative to the alternatives, it is marked in green. Where it performs poorly
relative to the alternatives, it is marked in red.
2.6.9.4 Qualitatively assessing each of the potential schemes against the

objectives indicates that heavy rail has the greatest potential. Underground
performs strongly against the objectives but would have very high
complexity of construction and operation. Similarly light rail performs
strongly against the objectives but would be challenging to deliver in a way
that aligns with policy and would have high complexity of construction and
operation. Bus transit could be a lower cost alternative to heavy rail, as it
would deliver moderate benefits against all objectives.
55
Table 19: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of construction and operation
Scheme Alignment with Objective A: New homes Objective B: Orbital transport Objective C: Public Complexity of construction and
intervention policy and jobs connectivity transport capacity operation
frameworks
Heavy rail (WLO) Yes High High High Medium
Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides high capacity service Uses existing infrastructure
high capacity Oak and Brent Cross Some junction works required
Links Hounslow Loop to North London Shared running with other passenger rail
line and Old Oak and freight services
Underground Yes High High High Very High
Delivers new connectivity at Provides new north-south connection Provides high capacity service Entirely new infrastructure
high capacity along the full length of the corridor Significant tunnelling required
Could serve town centres directly
Bus transit Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium
Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides medium capacity Requires reallocation of road-space
lower capacity than rail Oak and Brent Cross, but with slower service Requires balancing the needs of
journey times than rail Less likely than rail to attract pedestrians, cyclists and bus users
Could serve town centres directly customer from crowded radial
rail routes
Light rail Depends on High Medium High High
scope Delivers new connectivity at Provides new connection between Old Provides high capacity service Requires trams and trains to share track
Potential conflict high capacity Oak and Brent Cross Requires reallocation of road-space
with MTS Potential to improve connectivity south
Proposal 18 of Old Oak, depending on route
Enhanced bus Yes Low Medium Low Low
priority Unlikely to deliver new Improves speeds and reliability, but Limited scope to provide Requires reallocation of road-space, but at
connectivity and capacity with slower journey times than rail additional capacity a lower level of intervention than bus transit
needed to unlock full housing Requires balancing the needs of
potential pedestrian, cyclists and bus users
Walk/cycle Yes Low Low No Low
schemes While walking and cycling has Does not deliver connectivity for longer Does not provide new public Requires reallocation of road-space, but in
a role in helping to optimise journeys transport capacity most cases this could be at a lower level of
densities, it would be unlikely intervention than for bus schemes
to do so at the same level as Requires balancing the needs of
other options in this context pedestrians, cyclists and bus users
Highway No N/A N/A N/A N/A
capacity
schemes
56
2.7 The benefits of the West London Orbital line option (WLO)
2.7.1 WLO scheme options
2.7.1.1 The WLO scheme is a heavy rail scheme consisting of a central core
between South Acton and Neasden, with two branch options at either end,
to Hendon/West Hampstead in the north, and to Hounslow/Kew Bridge in
the south.
2.7.1.2 A ‘core’ 8tph option and a 4tph alternative sensitivity have been fully
appraised in the Economic Case.
Figure 30: WLO proposal (as described in Mayor’s Transport Strategy)
2.7.1.3 The core option is a service of 4tph Kew Bridge - Hendon and 4tph
Hounslow – West Hampstead, meaning 8tph through the central core as
shown in Figure 31.
Figure 31: WLO core option service pattern
57
2.7.1.4 A second more limited service was also considered, consisting of a 4tph
service Hounslow - Hendon only (Figure 32).
Figure 32: WLO 4tph sensitivity service pattern
2.7.1.5 In addition to the core option and 4tph sensitivity, one alternative 8tph
service pattern ( 4tph Kew Bridge – West Hampstead and 4tph Hounslow
– Hendon), three alternative 4tph combinations (Kew Bridge - Hendon,
Hounslow – West Hampstead, Kew Bridge – West Hampstead), and three
truncated alignments (Hounslow – Brent Cross West, Lionel Road -
Hendon, Brentford - Hendon) were also modelled in Railplan.
2.7.1.6 Two alternative land use scenarios (see 2.7.2), reflecting the development
which could be supported by the WLO, were also modelled.
2.7.1.7 The options considered may be refined further in future business cases.
2.7.2 The WLO scheme could enable the delivery of new homes
 The WLO could enable the delivery of 8,800 new homes. Up to c. 29,000
new homes could be delivered if a more flexible approach to planning was
applied, while remaining consistent with the draft new London Plan.
2.7.2.1 A development capacity study was commissioned to support this Business

Case. This work is an independent study undertaken by a consultant for
TfL to identify potential development and employment that could come
forward as a result of the scheme.
2.7.2.2 In assessing development potential, the study considered locations within

a 1km catchment of a station (corresponding to approximately 10-minute
walk) to reflect potential impacts of the scheme on housing delivery. A
“bottom up” approach was used to identify site capacity and development
potential based on information from the London Strategic Housing and
Land Availability Assessment 2017(SHLAA)35. The study considered sites
that could be delivered from SHLAA Phase 3 onwards (i.e. from 2024).
2.7.2.3 The study sets out three scenarios as shown in Table 20.
35
To help deliver the number of homes set out in the draft new London Plan the delivery of small sites is
also being strongly encouraged (Policy H2), with west and north west boroughs forecast to see over a
third of growth in the form of small sites development.
58
Table 20: Development Capacity Study scenarios

Scenario 1: “without Scenario 2: WLO- Scenario 3: Maximum development
scheme” dependent potential uplift
This scenario identifies This scenario identifies the This scenario identifies the additional
the development that development that could development that could be unlocked
would occur in each potentially be unlocked as a as a result of the WLO scheme should
location regardless of result of the WLO. This a more flexible approach to planning
whether the WLO scenario is compliant with the be applied. This scenario is still fully
scheme occurs or not, draft new London Plan and compliant with the draft new London
assuming sites with Local Planning Authorities’ Plan.
higher degree of policies.
certainty will come Sites identified in scenario 2 are taken
forward. Sites with ‘approval’ are forward into this scenario. In addition,
assumed to come forward at new sites are included:
Sites with ‘approval’ and the level assumed in the
 Sites identified as unsuitable in
those classified as SHLAA (no additional uplift
the SHLAA because they are SIL
‘allocated’ and ‘potential from the WLO) as these sites
or LSIS (assuming no net loss of
development’ were would come forward prior to
employment floorspace, and fully
considered for this the scheme being delivered.
compliant with GLA standard for
category. 36
SIL intensification/increase)
Sites classified as ‘allocated’
Sites classified as and ‘potential development’  Sites identified as ‘low probability’
‘excluded’, ‘to be were assumed to benefit from because they are social housing
deleted’, ‘unsuitable’ and improved connectivity as a or have challenges relating to
37
‘low probability’ were not result of the WLO, and multiple ownerships
included, as SHLAA therefore had a PTAL uplift of
 Other sites that have not
assumes these would 1 applied to intensify
previously been identified in the
not come forward. development potential during
SHLAA
the SHLAA timeline of Phase
3 and beyond. It should be noted that no Maximum
development scenario sites could
come forward without further
discussions with LPAs and the
Greater London Authority.
2.7.2.4 Under the WLO-dependent scenario, the study identified an additional

8,800 residential units unlocked by the WLO scheme in the area. The
stations with the most WLO-dependent potential identified are
Cricklewood, Neasden, and South Acton. Together, these stations could
bring forward over 6,000 units within a 1km catchment.
36
LB Brent, LB Ealing and OPDC are in the ‘Provide Capacity’ category for industrial floorspace in the
draft new London Plan. This means they are among the boroughs where strategic demand for industrial,
logistical and related uses is anticipated to be the strongest. They should seek to deliver intensified
floorspace capacity in either existing and/or new locations accessible to the strategic road network and
in locations with potential for transport by rail and/or water. This study assumes that this can take place
away from the WLO. All other boroughs affected by the WLO are in the ‘Retain Capacity’ category.
37
where applicable
59
2.7.2.5 In the Maximum development scenario, up to an additional 29,000 units

could be unlocked. This could be as a result of LPAs and the Mayor
agreeing to intensify Strategic Industrial Locations, as well as the
redevelopment of social housing38.
2.7.2.6 The West London Alliance has previously undertaken a development

capacity study in 2014. This work estimated that the WLO could unlock up
to 20,000 homes. The 2014 study approach was based on assumptions
broadly in line with those for the WLO-dependent scenario plus a number
of SIL sites considered ‘highly likely’ to come forward for mixed use
development, including residential.
2.7.2.7 The findings of these studies do not dictate what will happen on the
ground. The studies are intended to be used as a basis to inform further
planning across each Local Authority. Consultation with all stakeholders,
including local communities, public sector land owners and the Mayor,
would be required to further refine the development potential on a site-
specific basis.
2.7.2.8 In addition to homes directly supported, the scheme could also improve
connectivity to other growth areas further away from the route, such as
Harrow, Southall and Wembley via interchange at Harlesden, Neasden
and Old Oak respectively.
38
where applicable
60
Table 21: Summary of housing potential by location (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)

Station Scenarios
Total Total Additional units to Total Additional units to
units units baseline units baseline
Acton Central 1,434 1,910 476 4,585 3,151
Brent Cross 7,798 7,798 0 10,746 2,948
West
Brentford 1,961 2,290 329 3,207 1,246
Cricklewood 1,518 3,109 1,591 3,474 1,956
Harlesden 1,905 2,020 115 2,020 115
Hendon 1,622 2,154 532 3,131 1,509
Hounslow 3,394 3,739 345 3,739 345
Isleworth 1,322 1,553 231 2,678 1,356
Kew Bridge 1,132 1,132 0 2,791 1,659
Lionel Road 619 619 0 1,310 691
Neasden 2,126 4,253 2,127 8,014 5,888
OOC Victoria 18,244 18,244 0 18,244 0
39
Road
South Acton 2,533 4,917 2,384 6,490 3,957
Syon Lane 616 708 92 3,173 2,557
West Hampstead 1,792 2,374 582 3,667 1,875
Total 48,016 56,819 8,803 77,269 29,253
Source: SNC Lavalin
Table 22: Summary of housing potential by Planning Authority (SHLAA phase 3 onwards)
Local Authority Scenarios
Ealing 3,610 6,463 10,711
Hammersmith & Fulham 22 22 22
Barnet 10,220 11,632 12,609
Brent 3,510 6,598 13,672
Hounslow 9,467 10,382 17,240
Camden 1,750 2,196 3,489
40
OPDC 19,383 19,383 19,383
Richmond upon Thames 54 143 143
Total 48,016 56,819 77,269
Source: SNC Lavalin
39
40
61
2.7.3 The WLO scheme could support employment growth

 The WLO could support employment capacity for 5,000 retail, 12,000 office
and 6,000 industrial jobs.
 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population

able to access growing employment hubs such as Old Oak/Park Royal and
Great West Corridor
2.7.3.1 The development capacity study also considered a high level desktop
assessment of employment workspace potential as a result of the WLO.
The WLO-dependent scenario considers the employment capacity of
allocated, approved and potential development sites. Securing of these
sites’ development for mixed use provides employment capacity of 5,000
retail, nearly 12,000 office and 6,000 industrial jobs.
2.7.2.9 The WLO would significantly increase the economically active population
able to access stations serving growing employment hubs at Old Oak/Park
Royal (13 per cent) and the Great West Corridor (27-38 per cent)41 (Table
23).
Table 23: Economically active population able to access each station within 50 minutes
(‘000s)
Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change
Acton Central 1,121 1,338 19.3%
Brent Cross West 718 790 10.1%
Brentford 918 1,167 27.2%
Cricklewood 1,038 1,046 0.8%
Harlesden 1,168 1,176 0.7%
Hendon 922 980 6.2%
Hounslow 505 525 4.0%
Isleworth 546 575 5.2%
Kew Bridge 1,034 1,162 12.4%
Lionel Road 838 1,010 20.4%
Neasden 796 801 0.7%
OOC Victoria Road 1,147 1,294 12.9%
South Acton 1,175 1,246 6.0%
Syon Lane 715 986 37.9%
West Hampstead 2,275 2,283 0.3%
Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 population
2.7.2.10 Furthermore, the WLO would link a number of town centres across West
London, several of which are identified in the draft new London Plan as
strategic regeneration priorities. Improved public transport connections can
41
Assumes 50 minute commuting time. Not including new dependent residential development. Old
Oak/Park Royal would be served by Old Oak Common Victoria Road. Great West Corridor would be
served by Brentford and Syon Lane
62
play an important role in maintaining town centre viability. Previous

analysis by GLA Economics has demonstrated evidence of a strong
relationship between employment and population density in areas of low
public transport accessibility, concluding that “there is reasonable evidence
to suggest that land turned over for housing in areas of low transport
accessibility could be associated with employment growth in the local
economy”42. The results of the study suggest that increasing the resident
population of an area by 1,000 could potentially, on average, lead to 171
additional jobs in the local area.
2.7.4 The WLO scheme would address orbital connectivity barriers and improve
journey times across west and north west London
 The WLO would halve journey times between the Old Oak/Park Royal and
Brent Cross/Cricklewood Opportunity Areas
 The WLO would provide a new direct link between residential areas, town
centres and employment clusters in LB Hounslow and the Old Oak/Park
Royal Opportunity Area, significantly increasing the number of jobs within a
reasonable public transport travel time from stations along the Hounslow
Loop line
 The WLO would reduce journey times and changes required for public
transport journeys across west and north west London and beyond by linking
eight town centres directly to the Old Oak strategic interchange
2.7.4.1 The WLO scheme would bridge the public transport connectivity gap
between north and west London. The route would provide a direct link
between Old Oak/Park Royal and the Brent Cross/Cricklewood area, with
journey times of 12-15 minutes, compared to journey times of at least 23 -
35 minutes at present43. The service would provide a reliable alternative to
travelling by car on the congested road network in the area.
2.7.4.2 The WLO scheme would provide a direct service for customers wishing to
travel between stations served by the Hounslow Loop line and those
served by the North London line, allowing customers originating in
Hounslow and Brentford to access Acton and Old Oak without needing to
back-track or use parallel bus routes to complete their journeys.
42
More residents, more jobs? 2015 update: The relationship between population, employment and
accessibility in London, GLA Economics, 2015
43
WLO operating times between Old Oak Victoria Road and Cricklewood are estimated to be 12.5
minutes (Source: TfL/WSP). Current journey times are approximately 23 – 35 minutes in the inter peak
(Source: TfL Journey Planner. The lower end of the range relates to journeys from Willesden Junction to
Cricklewood via London Overground and Thameslink. The upper end of the range relates to journeys
from Victoria Road to Cricklewood via bus route 266).
63
Interchange at Kew Bridge would enable easier journeys from Old Oak and
areas to the north to Chiswick and Barnes.
2.7.4.3 The effect of this would be an increase in the number of jobs accessible
within 50 minutes of stations south/south west of Old Oak in particular, with
some seeing an increase of up to 76 per cent (Table 24)
Table 24: Jobs accessible from each station within 50 minutes (‘000s)
Station Without WLO With WLO Percentage change
Acton Central 2,260 3,213 42.2%
Brent Cross West 1,694 1,796 6.0%
Brentford 1,271 1,985 56.2%
Cricklewood 2,841 2,850 0.3%
Harlesden 2,638 2,660 0.8%
Hendon 2,153 2,251 4.6%
Hounslow 537 592 10.3%
Isleworth 588 654 11.2%
Kew Bridge 1,941 2,188 12.7%
Lionel Road 1,406 1,907 35.7%
Neasden 2,198 2,199 0.0%
OOC Victoria Road 2,854 3,147 10.3%
South Acton 2,585 2,923 13.1%
Syon Lane 1,041 1,835 76.2%
West Hampstead 4,012 4,030 0.5%
Source: TfL Strategic Analysis, 2031 employment
2.7.4.4 The WLO scheme also supports the development of Old Oak as a
strategic interchange for west and north west London. The MTS identifies
strategic interchanges as having the potential to provide multiple high-
frequency radial services to central London, high quality orbital services
that connect to other parts of London and high frequency local bus
services. A mature strategic interchange at Old Oak would make public
transport a competitive alternative to the car for journeys across the sub-
region, and between the sub-region and neighbouring sub-regions, without
the need to travel via central London.
64
Figure 33: Strategic interchanges
2.7.4.5 By addressing orbital connectivity barriers, and supporting the

development of a strategic interchange, the WLO could deliver journey
time benefits for both orbital and radial trips.
2.7.4.6 The WLO scheme would link a corridor stretching from Hounslow to
Hendon to the new Elizabeth Line station at Old Oak Common, enabling
more direct one-stop connections to Heathrow, the West End, the City and
Canary Wharf. This could yield journey time benefits for trips from parts of
LB Hounslow to destinations in the West End, and from LB Brent towards
Heathrow (via the Elizabeth line).
Table 25: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to West End using Elizabeth line interchange)
OD Pair Route Journey Number Route with Journey Number Journey
without time of WLO time with of time
WLO without changes WLO changes saving
WLO
Hounslow to Hounslow – 62 mins 1 Hounslow – 50 mins 1 12 mins
Tottenham Waterloo – Old Oak –
Court Road Tottenham Tottenham
Court Road Court Road
Neasden to Neasden – 70 mins 1 Neasden – 45 mins 1 25 mins
Heathrow Bond Street – Old Oak –
(via Elizabeth Heathrow Heathrow
44
line)
44
Assumes customer uses Elizabeth line rather than premium Heathrow Express service
65
2.7.4.7 By providing a direct link from LB Hounslow into this strategic interchange,
the WLO scheme would enable north-south trips to be made within the
sub-region with one interchange, avoiding the need to travel via central
London. At present, to travel from Hounslow, Isleworth or Brentford to
Wembley or Harrow would require multiple changes, including at least one
additional bus stage in many cases. This makes the public transport option
unappealing, meaning the trip would either be made by car or not at all. By
feeding the strategic interchange at Old Oak, the WLO would enable
multiple new one-stop origin-destination pairs by public transport within the
sub-region, with competitive journey times.
Table 26: Journey time comparison (Hounslow to Wembley with fewer interchanges)
OD Pair Route without Journey Number Route Journey Number Journey

WLO time of with WLO time with of time
without changes WLO changes saving
WLO
Hounslow Hounslow – 64 mins 2 Hounslow – 47 mins 1 17 mins
to Gunnersbury Harlesden –
Wembley (bus) – Willesden Wembley
Junction – Central
Central
Wembley Central
Hounslow – 67 mins 2 Hounslow – 47 mins 1 20 mins
Richmond – Harlesden –
Willesden Wembley
Junction – Central
Wembley Central
2.7.4.8 The Dudding Hill line links LB Barnet and the Thameslink corridor to this
part of west London. A new passenger service would enable trips from the
north sub-region to town centres in west London, such as Wembley,
Ealing, Acton, Brentford and Hounslow, to be made by public transport via
Old Oak, without the need to back-track or travel via central London. This
would also provide additional connectivity from outer north London and
towns on the edge of London such as Borehamwood and St. Albans to
HS2 and Heathrow airport (via the Elizabeth line).
Table 27: Journey time comparison (Thameslink corridor to west London, avoiding Zone 1)
OD Pair Route Journey Number Route with Journey Number Journey
without WLO time of WLO time with of time
without changes WLO changes saving
WLO
Brent Cross Brent Cross 55 mins 2 Brent Cross 31 mins 1 24 mins
West to West – West West – Old
Ealing Hampstead- Oak – Ealing
Bond Street – Broadway
Broadway
Ealing
Broadway
St. Albans St. Albans – 86 mins 1 St. Albans – 77 mins 2 9 mins
to Heathrow Farringdon – Brent Cross
(via Heathrow West – Old
Oak –
Elizabeth
Heathrow
line)
66
Figure 34: West and north west London interchanges (without WLO & with WLO)
to Watford, Stanmore and Luton
to Watford, Stanmore and Luton Key
West London Orbital
Hendon
London Underground
New interchanges Hendon Bakerloo
Central
District
Brent Cross
enabling journeys Jubilee
Metropolitan
West Brent Cross Piccadilly
between Thameslink, West Other Rail
London Overground
Jubilee and Bakerloo/ Elizabeth line
Thameslink
Watford DC corridors Great Western Railway

South Western Railway
London Northwestern Railway
Neasden and destinations to the High Speed 2
Neasden
south, without needing
to travel via central
Harlesden
London
Harlesden
Cricklewood
Cricklewood
to the West
Midlands and beyond West to the West
Hampstead Midlands and beyond West
to Stratford Hampstead
to Stratford
Willesden
Junction Willesden
Junction
to the West End,

City and Canary to the West End,
Greenford Wharf City and Canary
Greenford Wharf
Old Oak
to the West End, Old Oak
to Heathrow, Slough City and Canary New direct link to Heathrow, Slough
to the West End,
and Reading Wharf City and Canary
between and Reading Wharf
Hounslow Loop
Ealing
Broadway and Old Oak, Ealing
Broadway
enabling journeys
between Surrey
Hounslow Kew and Old Oak/Park Kew
Bridge Hounslow
to Feltham
and Staines to Clapham Royal. to Feltham
Bridge
Junction and and Staines to Clapham
Waterloo Junction and
Richmond Waterloo
Richmond
67
2.7.5 The WLO scheme could help address congestion and capacity challenges
in west and north west London
 The WLO could provide a competitive alternative to the car, reducing
congestion along some of the busiest corridors in west and north west
London
 The WLO could alleviate crowding on the busy rail and Tube lines
2.7.5.1 The journey time savings outlined above would make public transport more
competitive in comparison with the car across west and north west
London. Alongside a wide array of ongoing measures (including active
travel schemes and continued development of the bus network), this would
support mode shift from the car to active, efficient and sustainable modes,
which would help to reduce congestion and related disbenefits (e.g. poor
air quality.
2.7.5.2 By providing competitive alternatives to travel via central London, the WLO
could also help to relieve pressure on some of the most crowded sections
of the transport network, including the Piccadilly line.
2.7.6 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with London and local policy
2.7.6.1 The WLO scheme aligns strongly with both London wide policy (as
outlined in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, draft new London Plan and
other Mayoral documents), and local policy (as outlined in local plans,
OAPFs and sub-regional visions).
Table 28: Policy alignment of WLO scheme
Strategy/ Policy Policy/Proposal/Objective How WLO scheme supports

Document these objectives
National Sets out aims of delivering a sufficient supply The WLO scheme delivers a
Planning Policy of homes, building a strong, competitive new sustainable transport
Framework economy, ensuring the vitality of town option. The new capacity and
(February 2019) centres, promoting healthy and safe connectivity this brings would
communities, promoting sustainable support the delivery of new
transport, supporting high quality homes, a strong competitive
communications, making effective use of economy and successful town
land, achieving well-designed places, centres.
protecting Green Belt land, meeting the
challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change, conserving and enhancing
the natural environment, conserving and
enhancing the historic environment, and
facilitating the sustainable use of minerals
68

Connecting Sets out vision for: The WLO scheme expands
people: A  A more reliable railway the passenger rail network in
strategic vision  An expanded network west London and delivers
for rail (2017)  A better deal for passengers improved connectivity for
 A modern workforce passengers.
 A productive and innovative sector
Mayor’s Proposal 88: The Mayor, through TfL, the The WLO scheme is a
Transport West London Alliance boroughs and Network proposal in its own right in the
Strategy (2018) Rail, will work towards the delivery of a new MTS (Proposal 88).
London Overground ‘West London Orbital’
line connecting Hounslow with Cricklewood The WLO scheme improves
and Hendon via Old Oak, Neasden and Brent public transport connectivity in
Cross west London, enabling more
Policy 1: The Mayor, through TfL and the trips to be made by active,
boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will efficient and sustainable
reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in modes.
favour of active, efficient and sustainable
modes of travel, with the central aim for 80 The WLO scheme supports
per cent of all trips in London to be made on the emerging strategic
foot, by cycle or using public transport by interchange at Old Oak,
2041. providing orbital interchange
Proposal 67: The Mayor, through TfL, will with radial services to central
work to encourage the development and London, orbital services to
integration of inner and outer London rail other parts and high-
services and multi-modal interchange hubs to frequency local bus services.
create ‘mini-radial’ public transport links to
town centres and to provide improved ‘orbital’ The WLO scheme could
public transport connectivity. unlock 8,800 new homes
Policy 21: The Mayor through TfL and the along its route in line with
boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will Good Growth.
ensure that new homes and jobs in London
are delivered in line with the transport
principles of Good Growth for current and
future Londoners by using transport to:
a) Create high density, mixed-use place,
and
b) Unlock growth potential in
underdeveloped parts of the city
69

Draft new Policy GG2: To create high-density, mixed- The WLO scheme is
London Plan use places that make the best use of land, highlighted in the Key
(2017) those involved in planning and development Diagram specifying the Plan’s
must:
At Examination spatial vision for London.
in Public Stage A. Prioritise the development of Opportunity
Areas, brownfield land, surplus public sector The WLO scheme provides a
land, sites which are well-connected by direct link between
existing or planned Tube and rail stations,
Opportunity Areas in Old
sites within and on the edge of town centres,
and small sites. Oak/Park Royal, Brent Cross
B. Proactively explore the potential to intensify and the Great West Corridor
the use of land, including public land, to and links each of these to the
support additional homes and workspaces,
promoting higher density development, wider public transport
particularly on sites that are well-connected by network.
public transport, walking and cycling, applying
a design–led approach. The WLO scheme could
C. Understand what is valued about existing
places and use this as a catalyst for growth unlock 8,800 new homes
and place-making, strengthening London’s along its route in line with
distinct and varied character. Good Growth.
D. Protect London’s open spaces, including the
Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land,
designated nature conservation sites and local
spaces, and promote the creation of new
green infrastructure and urban greening.
E. Plan for good local walking, cycling and public
transport connections to support a strategic
target of 80 per cent of all journeys using
sustainable travel, enabling car-free lifestyles
that allow an efficient use of land, as well as
using new and enhanced public transport links
to unlock growth.
F. Maximise opportunities to use infrastructure
assets for more than one purpose, to make
the best use of land and support efficient
maintenance.
Policy GG4: To create a housing market that

works better for all Londoners, those involved
in planning and development must:
A. Ensure that more homes are delivered.

B. Support the delivery of the strategic target of
50 per cent of all new homes being genuinely
affordable.
C. Create mixed and inclusive communities, with
good quality homes that meet high standards
of design and provide for identified needs,
including for specialist housing.
D. Identify and allocate a range of site, including
small sites, to deliver housing locally,
supporting skilled preceision-manufacturing
that can increase the rate of building, and
planning for all necessary supporting
infrastructure from the outset.
E. Establish ambitious and achievable build-out
rates at the planning stage, incentivising build-
out milestones to helo ensure that homes are
built quickly and to reduce the likelihood of
permissions being sought to sell land on at a
higher value.
70

Draft new Policy GG5: To conserve and enhance The WLO could support local
London Plan London’s global economic competitiveness economies by connecting
(2017) and ensure that economic success is shared town centres and Opportunity
amongst all Londoners, those involved in
At Examination Areas across the sub-region.
planning and development must:
in Public Stage
(continued) A. Promote the strength and potential of the The WLO provides
wider city region. connectivity to Strategic
B. Seek to ensure that London’s economy Industrial Locations,
diversifies and that the benefits of economic
success are shared more equitably across supporting intensification at
London. these well-used and valuable
C. Plan for sufficient employment and industrial sites.
space in the right locations to support
economic development and regeneration.
D. Ensure that sufficient high-quality and
affordable housing, as well as physical and
social infrastructure is provided to support
London’s growth.
E. Ensure that London continues to provide
leadership in innovation, research, policy and
ideas, supporting its role as an international
incubator and centre for learning.
F. Promote and support London’s rich heritage
and cultural assets, and its role as a 24-hour
city.
G. Maximise London’s existing and future public
transport, walking and cycling network, as well
as its network of town centres, to support
agglomeration and economic activity.
London Policy 3.2: Investment to support the delivery The WLO scheme could
Housing of homes and enabling infrastructure should unlock 8,800 new homes
Strategy (2018) be increased and better-targeted to unlock along its route in line with
development. Good Growth.
London Proposal 4.2.2c: The Mayor will work with While the Dudding Hill line is
Environment government and other partners to seek currently diesel-only, there is
Strategy (2018) reductions in emissions from rail transport a medium-term aspiration to
and at stations. electrify this line.
Improved public transport

connectivity would promote
mode shift in west and north
west London, bringing air
quality benefits.
Mayor’s Commits the Mayor to working with the OPDC The WLO delivers enhanced
Culture to create a new cultural quarter around the connectivity at Old Oak.
Strategy (2018) planned Old Oak Common station.
Identifies the link between transport
investment and supporting London’s creative
economy.
Mayor’s Identifies the action to use new transport The WLO scheme could
Economic schemes to unlock homes and jobs across unlock 8,800 new homes
Development London, with developments planned around along its route in line with
Strategy for walking and cycling for local trips and public Good Growth and could also
London (2017) transport use for longer journeys support new jobs.
71

Mayor’s Health Highlights the link between the Healthy The WLO scheme aligns with
Inequalities Streets Approach to transport planning, the Healthy Streets Approach
Strategy (2018) including enhancements to the public by providing enhanced public
transport network, and health outcomes. transport connectivity.
Old Oak & Park Principle T1: Proposals should: The WLO scheme provides a
Royal OAPF a. Deliver a state of the art rail station at Old new London Overground
45
(2015) Oak Common, providing interchange between station at Old Oak Common
HS2, Crossrail 1 and the Great Western Main Victoria Road and enhances
Line; the overall connectivity of the
b. Provide new London Overground station(s) area.
and supporting infrastructure;
c. Provide substantial capacity improvements
to existing London Underground and
Overground stations, particularly Willesden
Junction and North Acton, and potentially
stations in the wider area;
d. Ensure that the impact on existing rail
infrastructure is minimised during
construction; and
e. Seek to embed existing and future
technology to inform station design to
maximise integration with the wider area.
OPDC Local Policy P7: Proposals should plan positively to These policies would support
46
Plan (2018) deliver the place vision by contributing and / the delivery of the WLO
With Planning or delivering where appropriate and relevant scheme
Inspectorate as follows:
m) Safeguarding land for the delivery of the

West London Orbital Line station and services
within Acton Wells
Policy P7C2: Proposals should plan positively

to deliver the cluster vision by contributing
and / or delivering where appropriate and
relevant as follows:
d) Supporting the delivery of Old Oak

Common Lane London Overground Station to
enhance public transport access and as an
integral part of the built environment by
providing: ground floor entrances onto the
station squares; 24 hour ungated walking and
cycling east west access routes; and step-
free access.
45
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/oapf_for_web.pdf
46
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/kd1_opdc_local_plan_and_appendix2018.pdf
72

WLA West The West London Vision for Growth is to be a The WLO scheme supports
London’s thriving and prosperous part of a premier economic growth and town
Vision for world city, with highly profitable businesses centres by improving
47
Growth investing in West London, successful connectivity through west
residents and resilient communities. London.
The Vision outlines six key objectives:
•To achieve a step change in partnership with The WLO scheme could
business and industry to facilitate sustainable unlock 8,800 new homes,
economic growth supporting the objective of
•To increase small business start-up and delivering 74,000 homes
survival rates through business support hubs, across the wider region.
higher exports and focused collaboration with
higher education institutions
•To remove the skills gap and support low-
paid residents in work to enable them to
achieve pay levels that can sustain and
improve their living arrangements
•To radically improve success rates for
employment programmes for residents with
all young people in education, employment or
training
•To deliver at least 74,000 homes as part of a
housing programme that meets the needs of
our residents and supports growth
•To create and maintain thriving town centres
which are hubs for work and living
West London Sets out West London-specific challenges: The WLO scheme directly
Sub-Regional  Enhance east-west capacity and manage addresses north-south public
Transport congestion transport connectivity and
48
Plan  Improve north-south public transport improves access to, from and
connectivity within Opportunity Areas at
 Improve access to, from and within key Brent Cross/Cricklewood, Old
locations Oak/Park Royal and the Great
 Improve land-based air quality West Corridor.
 Enhance the efficiency of freight
movement The scheme would
complement schemes aimed
at enhancing east-west
capacity, managing
congestion and improving air
quality, and would be
designed in a way that ensure
rail freight can be moved
efficiently.
47
http://app.thco.co.uk/wla/wlanew.nsf/pages/WLA-307
48
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/west-london-sub-regional-transport-plans-2016.pdf
73

LB Barnet Core Policy CS2 identifies Brent Cross- The WLO scheme serves
49
Strategy Cricklewood as a major focus for the creation regeneration areas around
of new jobs and homes (5,510 new homes by Brent Cross, Cricklewood and
2026) Hendon.
Policy CS9 identifies the delivery of high
quality transport systems in regeneration
areas as a priority
LB Brent Core Policy CP 14 states that the council will The WLO scheme provides a
50
Strategy promote improvements to orbital public northeast-southwest orbital
To be transport routes which link the strategic link across the borough,
superseded by centres in North West London and the Growth linking to the Old Oak Park
Draft Local Areas. Royal OA in the south.
Plan (below)
LB Brent Draft Policy BT1 (sustainable travel choice) of the The WLO would enhance
51 52
Local Plan draft new local plan notes that if the WLO is delivery of substantial new
Post- not taken forward, orbital travel will continue housing and employment
consultation to be dependent on the car and bus network, Growth Areas identified at
stage that these options are less reliable due to Staples Corner and Neasden
road congestion, and that this would have and improve local connectivity
detrimental economic and social impacts. The and opportunities for walking
latest consultation stage for this document and cycling in the areas
closed in January 2019. concerned.
LB Ealing Core Policy 4.4: Promote North-South Links The WLO scheme enhances
53
Strategy (a) To seek improvements to the North services along the North
London Line / London Overground stations London Line corridor.
and services in the borough.
LB Hounslow Policy EC1 seeks to promote the The WLO scheme provides a
54
Core Strategy development of the proposed rail connection Hounslow-Old Oak link.
from Hounslow station to Willesden Junction
via Old Oak Common, with services calling at
Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford.
Great West Outlines the need for sustainable transport The WLO scheme provides a
Corridor Local options need to be improved throughout the Hounslow-Old Oak link and
55
Plan Review area to provide attractive alternatives to the could include a station at
private car and reduce car dependency, Lionel Road.
including Lionel Road station on a Hounslow-
Old Oak link
49
https://www.barnet.gov.uk/dam/jcr:48a8da3d-2998-4c19-b33f-3bd690637878/Local%20Plan%20-
%20Core%20Strategy%20DPD%20(September%202012).pdf
50
https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf
51
https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411928/brent-preferred-options-local-plan-nov-2018.pdf
52
https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16411861/draft-local-plan-transport.pdf
53
https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/3559/adopted_development_strategy_3_april_2012.p
df
54
https://hounslow.box.com/shared/static/i1jpu00afbftgbd1fdubkl6z0ivgdugo.pdf
74
2.7.7 Technical Assessment
2.7.7.1 A high level technical assessment of work previously completed by the

WLA has been conducted on issues such as engineering complexity,
constructability and identification of key dependencies and risks. Some key
considerations of this high level assessment for key elements of the WLO
scheme are presented in Table 29. This does not constitute a full feasibility
assessment for each infrastructure work identified and although no
‘showstoppers’ have been identified at this stage, confirmation of technical
feasibility would only be provided on the completion of a full GRIP 2
assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.
Table 29: High level technical assessment key considerations
New stations at Neasden  Assumed to be based on ‘standard’ London Overground

and Harlesden station construction. London Overground Station Design Idiom
to be used
 Initial identification of required facilities undertaken
 Pedestrian modelling needed to determine correct capacity
provision
 Detailed land assessment required both for construction and
final state
Brent Cross West Station  Assumed that the scheme would integrate with the new
station. The design of the new station would need to ensure
there is provision for WLO to be provided at a later date
Acton Wells Junction  Bridge works associated with four tracking identified as
particularly challenging within the geographical context
 Access for construction works highlighted as problematic, both
in terms of obtaining railway possession access and non-rail
land availability for works site
Re-signalling of Dudding  A number of different signalling control boundaries exist in the
Hill Line area which would make finding the right signalling solution and
control arrangements more challenging to get route approval
Kew Bridge or Lionel Road  Existing track alignment at this location would make providing
turnback a compliant turnback facility challenging. This would be further
complicated by platform provision if part of a new Lionel Road
station
Level crossing works  Potential interface with Network Rail National Level Crossing
Programme
 Requirement to use existing Network Rail risk assessment
procedure to assess need to close level crossing
Electrification/Traction  Confirmation of status of any electrification requirement for
power Kew – Acton and Dudding Hill Line sections required.
 Traction power modelling required to be undertaken for
electrified sections of the route to determine any additional
supply required to accommodate new service
55
https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/info/20167/local_plan/1104/great_west_corridor_local_plan_review/1
75
2.7.7.2 A high level review of existing cost estimate work has also been
undertaken. The outputs of this work have informed the Economic Case
and Financial Case.
2.7.8 Operational Assessment

2.7.8.1 A high level operational assessment has been undertaken56. This assumes
current timetable planning rules continue to apply, London Overground
services as per May 2018 timetable change and freight services as per
May 2018 WTT, and an 8tph WLO service pattern. This does not constitute
a full timetable study which would need to be conducted to determine full
operational feasibility of the proposed WLO service.
2.7.8.2 The reversing siding/bay platforms proposed at Hounslow, Kew Bridge,

West Hampstead and Hendon should be able to accommodate a
maximum of 6 trains per hour. Therefore the proposed train reversing
facility at terminus stations would be sufficient to meet the operational
requirements of 4tph turnaround operations at each terminus.
2.7.8.3 The route between South Acton and Acton Wells Junction would need to
be shared by London Overground North London Line services, freight
trains and the proposed WLO service. Based on the planning rules it would
provide a maximum capacity of 15tph, which is more than the total number
of passenger train paths required, and would give 2-3 paths that could be
allocated to freight services. This route section would be able to meet
current freight demand, but there would be limited spare capacity to cope
with future freight demand growth.
2.7.8.4 The proposed modified track layout at Acton Wells Junction, which
segregates freight and passenger movements, would help reduce
timetabling conflicts. However, the modified junction would be much bigger
than the existing junction and it would be more likely that trains would need
to clear the whole junction crossing, increasing the time required for this in
the Timetable Planning rules. This would need to be assessed again once
a signalling scheme for the new junction is developed.
2.7.8.5 Due to the more fluid nature of freight operations and the timetable
structure for existing passenger services, a full timetable study should be
conducted to determine full operational feasibility of the proposed WLO
service57. This would need to cover the full proposed route following
56
This assessment focuses on areas where London Overground currently runs (the central core of the
WLO alignment between South Acton and Old Oak).
57
A 2017 Network Rail timetable study concluded that a 4tph peak service between Hounslow and Old
Oak was possible, but would carry some performance risk
76
agreement of infrastructure and operational assumptions with Network Rail

as part of a full GRIP 2 assessment as proposed in the next stage of work.
2.8 Constraints and Dependencies

2.8.1 Overview
2.8.1.1 The scheme would be developed in collaboration with Network Rail, the
owner and provider of Britain’s National Rail infrastructure. As the entire
proposed WLO route is on Network Rail infrastructure, all technical and
operational approvals for the scheme would be through them. This section
considers key operational and planning constraints and dependencies as
identified by Network Rail based on the initial work to date, as well as other
policy constraints flowing from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, London
Plan, LPA local plans and other policies/strategies.
2.8.2 Stations and capacity

2.8.2.1 Network Rail has expressed concern over the ability of stations between
Hounslow and Kew Bridge to accommodate increased passenger services.
In the next stage business case development, capacity at existing stations
would be tested to determine if capacity interventions are required to
accommodate additional users driven by the new WLO service. Any new
stations proposed on the line of route would be designed to accommodate
expected future demand of the WLO service.
2.8.2.2 At Old Oak Common, it is recognised that assumptions would need to be

made as to whether passengers would be interchanging to other services
(e.g. GWR to Reading) or travelling to Old Oak itself. Previous modelling
has suggested that the scheme would cause significant changes to
demand at Old Oak Common station (representing an approximate
additional 10 per cent demand for the HS2/GWML station) that may drive
additional scope.
2.8.2.3 The impact on Elizabeth Line train loading also requires consideration.
2.8.3 Construction
2.8.3.1 There are likely to be considerable disruptive works for construction, partly
due to crossing busy junctions such as Acton Wells. Construction on HS2
and the GWML may happen at the same time, requiring careful planning
and integration between a number of major rail works.
2.8.4 Service trade-offs

2.8.4.1 The frequency of service on the Hounslow to Kew Bridge route would limit
the potential for more services to London Waterloo that could be available.
These services could be more valuable. We would continue to work with
77
Network Rail Long Term Planning in the next stage of business case
development to understand the scheme in the context of wider long-term
aspirations.
2.8.5 Rail freight

2.8.5.1 The WLO scheme would need to be developed in a way that aligns with
the MTS, ensuring that the shared network is planned to make the best
use of rail capacity for both passenger and freight services.
2.8.5.2 Future growth in rail freight is expected. Network Rail estimates a 50 per
cent increase in demand over the next 25 years. The potential for a W10
diversionary route (from Southampton to the West Midlands) via Kew
would impact on paths between Kew and Acton Canal Wharf. The WLO
scheme would need to be aligned to the key recommendations of the
Network Rail Freight Network Study58 and full consultation with freight
operators would be required through the formal Network Change process.
2.8.5.3 The Dudding Hill line and North London line are both important routes for
rail freight in London. The different acceleration and speeds of passenger
and freight trains would impact on the available capacity for both services
on shared parts of the network.
2.8.6 Rail emissions

2.8.6.1 The Dudding Hill line is not currently electrified. The MTS states that by
2050 all trains should be hauled by zero emission motive-power within
London. In the short-term, electrification of the route would be capital-
intensive with limited benefits given the volume of trains expected to use
the route. The core scheme considered in this Business Case assumes the
use of diesel trains. As such, the appraisal of the environmental impacts of
the scheme can therefore be considered to be pessimistic in the core
scheme (see Section 3).
2.8.6.2 London Overground would have no diesel fleet by the start of the WLO
service with the remaining diesel fleet on the Gospel Oak to Barking (GOB)
route being phased out in 2019 and replaced with a fully electric fleet. TfL
would also no longer have access to facilities for diesel trains within
Willesden Train Maintenance Depot (TMD) as these are being replaced for
the new electric fleet on the GOB line and therefore new maintenance and
stabling facilities for diesel trains would be required by the project.
58
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Freight-Network-Study-April-2017.pdf
78
2.8.6.3 Potential mitigation could include developing options for the provision of
battery-powered trains for this section of route. This technology is already
in use on some railways in Japan, and trials are planned on the Austrian
rail network in 2019. A number of approvals would be required to be
granted by the infrastructure owner Network Rail to allow for battery-
powered train technology to be used on the proposed WLO route.
2.8.6.4 In the longer-term full electrification could be pursued. Future iterations of

this Business Case should seek to utilise the already identified strategy for
electrification of rail freight and previous early feasibility work that Network
Rail has carried out on this route.
2.8.7 Planning policy

2.8.7.1 The scale of housing, employment and other development benefits that
could be attributed to the WLO scheme is dependent on the evolution of
planning policy. A masterplan-led approach to enable intensification and
co-location of housing and employment could enable significantly higher
housing volumes to be delivered while remaining consistent with the draft
new London Plan, particularly at stations along the northern end of the
route.
2.8.7.2 All the local planning authorities along the proposed route have been
engaged in preparation of this document and have contributed to the
development capacity study that has informed it. They are also ensuring
that the WLO is supported in their local plans.
2.8.8 Old Oak Common stations

2.8.8.1 The continued development of Old Oak as a strategic interchange is key to
realising many of the connectivity benefits of the WLO scheme. It is
therefore important that the Old Oak Common stations scheme continues
to progress, particularly the proposed Old Oak Common Lane station and
that it is developed in a way that supports the delivery of the WLO.
79
3 Economic Case
3.1 Description
3.1.1.1 The role of the Economic Case is to determine whether the West London
Orbital (WLO) scheme would be beneficial to the UK economy relative to
its costs. Measures used to express the economic case for each assessed
option include the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Benefit to Cost Ratio
(BCR).
3.2 Option selection

3.2.1.1 Two service patterns for the preferred heavy rail option are considered
within this economic case:
 8tph core option; 4tph Hounslow – West Hampstead and 4tph Kew
Bridge – Hendon
 4tph sensitivity; Hounslow – Hendon
3.2.1.2 All options assume that the route is not fully electrified and the assessment
therefore assumes operation is by diesel trains. Costs and benefits have
been modelled assuming operation by 4-car class 172 rolling stock, and
assume operation commences in 2026.
3.2.1.3 In addition to the two service patterns variants above, two alternative land
use scenarios have been modelled, using the outputs of the Development
Capacity Study outlined in Section 2.7.2. These are:
 A WLO dependent Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an

additional 8,800 homes)
 A Maximum Development Capacity Growth Scenario (an additional
29,300 homes)
3.2.1.4 Whilst these do not represent different options, they help to build
understanding of the potential outcomes and benefits of the scheme
through multiple modelled scenarios.
3.2.1.5 The remainder of this section considers the costs, revenue and benefits
associated with these options and scenarios, using additional sensitivity
tests where relevant to highlight the impact associated with different
uncertainties and modelling methodologies.
3.2.1.6 A key analytical challenge and uncertainty is the extent to which the
development scenarios represent new homes that are induced investment
(i.e. fully dependent on WLO). This should be investigated further at the
next stage of business case development. For the purpose of this analysis,
80
the scenarios assume fixed land-use i.e. the additional development is

included both with and without WLO.
3.3 Explanation of costs, cost savings and revenues

3.3.1 Capital Costs
3.3.1.1 Table 29 summarises the capital costs are included in the economic
appraisal and are taken from the study undertaken in October 2017 by
WSP for the West London Alliance59. Costs for Lionel Road station were
estimated based on WSP work conducted separately for LB Hounslow 60.
Table 30: Breakdown of Capital Costs, £m (assumed 2017 prices)

Cost item Cost
West Hampstead 2 new platforms 1
Cricklewood 2 new platforms 5.5
Hendon 2 new platforms 1
Brent Cross West station works 5
Neasden new station 6
Harlesden new station 6
OO Victoria road new platforms 6
Re-signalling of Dudding Hill line and Acton - 8
Kew
Quadrupling of Acton Wells Junction area 45
Bollo Lane level crossing placement 30
Acton level crossing 5
Kew Bridge or Lionel Road turnback 4
Old Kew Junction doubling 4.6
Old Kew Junction flyover 8.5
Hounslow bay platform 5.4
Depot facilities 5
Lionel Road new station* 6
Sub-total 152
Risk and Contingency (@ 80% of above total) 121
Total 273
*cost not supplied within WSP report.
3.3.1.2 This cost is assumed to occur evenly over the 3-year period from 2023 to
2025.
3.3.1.3 The inclusion of risk and contingency at 80 per cent has been included in
recognition of the early design stage of the scheme.
59
West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017)
60
Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014)
81
3.3.1.4 No additional cost is included for renewals, but provision for infrastructure
maintenance and renewals is at least part covered by the Fixed Track
Access Charge (FTAC) included within operating costs.
3.3.1.5 Inclusion of optimism bias, deflation to 2010 prices, a market price

adjustment, and discounting generates a total cost of £179m over 60 years
in 2010 prices and values.
3.3.1.6 We have also considered a further cost sensitivity where capital costs have
been further increased by £100m to account for possible additional costs
accruing to the scheme through additional scope.
3.3.2 Operating Costs

3.3.2.1 Table 31 outlines operating costs for the 8tph and 4tph service pattern
options.
Table 31: Breakdown of annual operating Costs, £m (2018 prices)
Cost item 8tph 4tph
Staff Costs 7.3 3.8
Rolling Stock Lease 7.9 4.2
Rolling Stock Maintenance 3.3 1.7
Fixed Track Access Charge (FTAC) 6.1 3.2
Variable Track Access Charge 0.3 0.3
(VTAC)
Diesel fuel 1.3 0.7
Total 26.3 13.9
Source: TfL
3.3.2.2 These costs draw on the following assumptions:

 A service pattern operating over an 18-hour day, with train frequency
consistent on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays.
 Operation by 4-car diesel units (modelled as class 172s); and
requirement for a fleet of 15 or 8 units (for the 8tph and 4tph options
respectively)
 Infrastructure charges assuming CP6 rates
 No explicit inclusion of station operating costs
3.3.2.3 Review of these costs has identified the following considerations:

 Passenger demand may not require the capacity of 4-car trains and
opportunity to operate shorter trains (if such units were available)
would reduce rolling stock least costs (indicatively by 20 per cent)
 Operation of alternative rolling stock, for example converted or new
battery or hybrid powered units, has the potential to also reduce rolling
stock costs, albeit the market for such units is currently developing
82
and little certainty is currently available over the possible cost

reductions
 Fixed Track Access Charge is calculated based on number of train
miles in accordance with industry standard practice. There is however
some potential for this to reduce if, upon consultation with the ORR, it
is recognised that costs are reduced following the addition of a new
operator on the route
 Station operating costs should be considered for four stations.
Assuming an indicative annual average operating cost per station of
£300k, this adds £1.2m of cost to the total above
3.3.2.4 On balance, total annual operating costs are retained at £26.3m and
£13.9m respectively for the two options within the economic assessment.
Whilst some opportunity for cost savings could be established this is offset
by a requirement to add station operating costs.
3.3.2.5 Further to the costs above, optimism bias at 1 per cent is added within the
economic appraisal.
3.3.3 Impact on Revenue

3.3.3.1 Revenue forecasts have been developed based on outputs from strategic
public transport modelling undertaken using TfL’s Railplan model61.
3.3.3.2 Key to these revenue forecasts are the following elements:

 Morning peak period Railplan demand forecasts for 2031, reporting
passenger kms by public transport sub-mode
 Fare per km (yield) assumptions
 Annualisation and growth parameters
3.3.3.3 Table 32 reports the 2031 ‘steady state’ annual revenue forecast for the
8tph WLO option. Whilst WLO services themselves are forecast to
generate £15m per annum of revenue, the net impact after consideration
61
The following schemes have been included within the Reference Case when calculating changes in
demand and revenue: 2031 bus services including Elizabeth Line related service changes; Jubilee and
Northern Line upgrades; Updated District Line specification (Ealing Broadway service replaced by
Piccadilly Line, 12tph Richmond service, 20tph Wimbledon service); Future updates to bus routes 440,
H28 and E10 (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); Corrections to bus services in the Great
West Corridor (sourced from validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); New
Brent Cross West station; Station interchange adjustments at Hounslow, Syon Lane, Brentford, Kew
Bridge, Osterley, Boston Manor, Northfields, South Ealing, Gunnersbury and Southall (sourced from
validation work undertaken as part of Great West Corridor modelling); Old Oak Common Masterplan
walk network updates (sourced from Great West Corridor modelling); New Overground stations at Hythe
Road and Old Oak Common Lane
83
of abstraction, notably from bus and London Underground services, is a

much more modest £2m.
3.3.3.4 The forecasts shown are developed from Railplan outputs, following
application of an annualisation factor consistent with TfL business case
guidance62. Fare yield (see Table 33) is based on values calculated
directly from 2017 outturn statistics for aggregate transport usage on TfL
bus, London Underground and London Overground services. It is assumed
that WLO average fares per km are consistent with the existing London
Overground network (with Crossrail assumed to be equivalent to London
Underground).
Table 32: Annual revenue forecasts; 8tph WLO option, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)
Annual Annual passenger Annual
passenger kms journeys Revenue (2017
prices)
West London Orbital 88.98 11.47 15.33
London Overground -7.40 -1.20 -1.27
London Underground -32.38 -2.75 -7.34
Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34
National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59
Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21
Total 22.84 3.31 2.27
sub-total (excluding franchised 32.08 3.08 3.86
rail)
Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph vs Standard Ref Case
Table 33: Yield assumptions, £ /km, 2017 prices

Yield
West London Orbital 0.17

London Overground 0.17
London Underground 0.23
Crossrail 0.23
National Rail (other 0.17
services)
Bus 0.18
Source: BCDM and WLO Funding Study analysis
3.3.3.5 Modelling of revenue forecasts for the 4tph sensitivity has been
undertaken in a consistent manner (see Table 34).
62
As per BCDM, an annualisation factor of 1076 has been used. Analysis of using more bespoke
annualisation factors has been considered within the Funding Study, but the sensitivity to alternative
approaches was found to be low.
84
Table 34: Annual revenue forecasts: 4tph sensitivity, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)
Annual Annual passenger Annual
passenger kms journeys Revenue
(2017 prices)
Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43
National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65
Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23
Total 23.84 2.16 3.15
sub-total (excluding franchised 33.44 2.41 4.80
rail)
Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 4tph vs Standard Ref Case
3.3.3.6 The result from the 4tph sensitivity is that annual revenue is higher than
the 8tph option. This is despite the revenue directly on WLO services being
over 20 per cent lower in the 4tph option, and results from higher levels of
abstraction from other modes (notably bus and London Underground) in
the 8tph scenario63.The reason for this low revenue benefit compared to
operating costs is due to the abstraction from higher yielding modes and
reduction in journey length given that WLO allows for more direct journeys
(for example avoiding higher zone 1 fares).
3.3.3.7 In addition to the revenue forecasts set out above for the standard 8tph
option and 4tph sensitivity, modelling and revenue forecasts have also
been produced assuming the two alternative land use scenarios (Table
35).
63
The Railplan results for the standard 4tph and 8tph options have been developed using a fixed
demand matrix generated from TfL’s LTS model. This LTS model run represents the 8tph option and
therefore biases the results of the 4tph option leading to lower abstraction relative to expected levels.
85
Table 35: Annual revenue forecasts: Alternative land use scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m
(2017 prices)
8tph Alternative land use 8tph Alternative land use
scenario: WLO dependent scenario: Maximum
Development Development
Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
passenger passenger Revenue passenger passenger Revenue
kms journeys (2017 kms journeys (2017
prices) prices)
West London Orbital 93.79 12.15 16.16 101.88 13.33 17.56
London Overground -8.29 -1.34 -1.43 -9.12 -1.46 -1.57
London Underground -34.94 -3.14 -7.92 -40.52 -3.67 -9.18
Crossrail 5.53 -0.08 1.25 5.45 -0.20 1.23
National Rail (other services) -9.41 0.17 -1.62 -11.89 0.14 -2.05
Bus -24.53 -4.75 -4.48 -27.52 -5.62 -5.02
Total 22.14 3.00 1.97 18.28 2.53 0.97
sub-total (excluding franchised rail) 31.55 2.83 3.59 30.17 2.38 3.02
Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis. WLO 8tph with alternative land use vs Ref Case with alternative land
use. If it was assumed that the additional development arises only with the WLO (i.e. 100 per cent dependent development),
the forecast revenue would be higher.
3.3.3.8 Table 36 summarises the revenue forecasts for the 8tph option, the 4tph
sensitivity and the alternative land use scenarios.
Table 36: Annual revenue forecasts: 8tph WLO option and 4tph sensitivity including
assessment of development scenarios, 2031 demand level, £m (2017 prices)
8tph Sensitivity: 8tph 8tph
Standard 4tph Alternative Alternative
Case land use land use
scenario: WLO scenario:
dependent Maximum
Development Development
Annual passenger kms, 23 24 22 18
m
Annual passenger 3 2 3 3
journeys, m
Annual Revenue, £m 2.3 3.1 2.0 1.0
(2017 prices)
Source: Railplan and WLO Funding Study analysis
3.3.4 Summary of Costs and Revenues

3.3.4.1 Table 37 summarises revenue and costs over the 60 years of the appraisal
for the 8tph and 4tph core scenarios.
Table 37: Summary of cost and revenues, £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60
years)
8tph 4tph
Revenue 66.4 92.3
Opex 585.7 309.0
Capex 178.9 178.9
Total Costs 764.5 487.8
Note demand for 4ph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as the 8tph scenario
86
3.4 Explanation of Social / Strategic Benefits

3.4.1 Monetised Benefits
3.4.1.1 TfL’s strategic transport planning models, LTS and Railplan, have been
used to forecast public transport demand response and route choice
changes in response to a series of WLO scenarios. Corresponding
changes in generalised time (comprising all journey elements i.e. walk
time, service wait time, service boarding penalty, in-vehicle time, in-vehicle
crowding penalty) due to the WLO were calculated and weighted by
demand to represent the journey time benefits of the WLO. These include
benefits for existing (trips using public transport in the Reference Case)
and new public transport users (trips attracted to public transport by WLO).
3.4.1.2 The benefits cover all zones within the Railplan model (which covers all of
the UK) and have been sense checked to ensure they are realistic.
However, a separate set of benefits has also been produced covering only
zones contained within the five London Boroughs served by the scheme,
to allow for the exclusion of potentially spurious (dis)benefits between
areas which in reality are unlikely to benefit from the scheme either
through direct use of WLO or through crowding relief on non-WLO
services.
3.4.1.3 Table 38 shows benefits for the 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity and alternative
land use scenarios. Note that benefits are generated by (a) trips attracted
to WLO and (b) trips using adjacent services which experience crowding
relief as a result of a shift in demand to WLO e.g. London Underground
Piccadilly Line services to central London. For the purposes of calculating
benefits, the land-use/development impact is assumed to be the same in
the Reference Case.
87
Table 38: Generalised Time Benefits (minutes), 2031 AM Peak, WLO 8tph, 4tph sensitivity
(versus Standard Reference Case) and alternative land use scenarios (versus Reference
Case with alternative land use)
WLO WLO WLO 8tph + WLO WLO 8tph +
8tph 4tph dependent Dev Max Dev
Whole Model Benefits Existing Users 178,106 131,450 192,049 233,996

New Users 13,745 12,165 13,956 14,292
Total 191,850 143,614 206,005 248,289
From Hounslow 38,871 35,764 39,920 49,779
To Hounslow 50,082 41,318 58,412 71,370
From Ealing 36,530 24,338 39,164 47,260
To Ealing 17,362 12,008 20,247 22,580
From Brent 37,237 23,753 42,512 49,654
To Brent 16,092 11,309 17,413 21,757
From Camden 4,974 3,100 6,000 7,052
To Camden 10,063 6,343 10,322 12,683
From Barnet 14,941 15,489 17,652 19,465
To Barnet 8,948 8,250 9,549 11,081
Screened Benefits (To/From 235,099 181,673 261,193 312,681
Hounslow/Ealing/Brent/Camden/ Barnet)
Source: Railplan
3.4.1.4 The highest benefits are in the Maximum Development scenario. This
represents the highest potential increase in trip-making in the WLO
corridor and therefore the highest level of transport user/non-user benefits
of the WLO scheme.
3.4.1.5 Externalities resulting from an increase in rail passenger km have been

considered and calculated using the marginal external cost methodology in
Table 39. As expected, these impacts are small compared to other
benefits. As the externality benefits are a function of the change in
passenger kilometres, the impacts are larger in the dependent
development scenarios, which assume a significant incremental change in
passenger travel.
3.4.1.6 However, since most of these trips are new trips resulting from the
proposed housing developments in the corridor, the methodology used
does not correctly capture the value of the benefits where dependency is
assumed. We have, however, for the purpose of completeness included
the externality benefits for all scenarios. However, the methodology should
be revised at the next stage of the business case development, and in
addition, the external costs on the existing network resulting from new trips
(due to land use development) be evaluated, as recommended in
WebTAG.
88
Table 39: Non-user benefits: £m, discounted 2010 prices and value (over 60 years)
8tph 4tph
Road Decongestion 67 70
Accidents 1 1
Greenhouse Emissions -2 -2
Local Air Quality 0 0
Noise 0 0
3.4.2 Non-Monetised Benefits

3.4.2.1 Broadly speaking, we anticipate the scheme would provide the following
non-monetised benefits:
 Wider economic impact through facilitating new housing development
in the vicinity of the scheme. This would have economic benefits, in
terms of generating new economic activity and increasing incomes.
Economic outcomes would be further enhanced through increases in
local land and property values
 Social impact through facilitating new housing development in the
vicinity of the scheme. This would have social benefits, in terms of
meeting local and London-wide housing needs. The scheme would
also increase accessibility to/from wider areas of London, thus
increasing job and housing opportunities. As an orbital scheme, it
would enable some trips to avoid Zone 1, thus further widening the
increase in accessibility provided by the scheme through lower fares
 Supporting strategic transport planning and policy in accordance with
the London Plan. As a public transport scheme it would provide
additional capacity on the public transport network, thus relieving
existing overcrowded routes (in particular radial services to/from
central London) and it would serve existing and new land-uses in the
WLO corridor
 Environmental benefits by encouraging mode shift from highway to
public transport and reducing trip length by reducing the distance
between home and job locations
3.5 Economic Appraisal
3.5.1 Key Assumptions

3.5.1.1 Appraisal assumptions are consistent with WebTAG and TfL’s business
case template.
3.5.2 Outcome of Quantified Analysis
3.5.2.1 Table 40 presents the outcome of the economic appraisal, capturing the
standard 8tph option, 4tph sensitivity, and the two alternative land use
89
scenarios. For the purposes of calculating benefits, the land-

use/development impact is assumed to be the same in the Reference
Case.
3.5.2.2 In addition to the options and sensitivities outlined above, a further two
cost sensitivities were conducted for the 8tph and 4tph service patterns
where capital costs were increased by £100m to account for possible
further costs accruing to the scheme through additional scope. Capital
costs would be considered in more detail at the next stage of business
case development.
3.6 Economic Case Conclusion
3.6.1.1 The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is between 1.4 and 1.8; the
benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between 1.7 and 2.0. This
indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for money.

identify the preferred service pattern.
90
Table 40: Appraisal results (60 years)

8tph Alternative Alternative Cost Service Cost
core land use: land use: sensitivity: level sensitivity:
8tph WLO 8tph Max Dev 8tph +£100m sensitivity: 4tph +£100m
dependent scenario capital cost 4tph capital cost
Dev scenario
Costs and Revenues
Capital Costs -179 -179 -179 -244 -179 -244
Road Infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0
cost saving
Operating Costs -586 -586 -586 -586 -309 -309
Net costs -765 -765 -765 -830 -488 -553
Incremental Total 66 58 28 66 92 92
Revenue
Total Financial Effect -698 -707 -736 -764 -395 -461
(NFE)
Social Benefits
Time Saving (£m) 977 1049 1264 977 731 731
Road Decongestion 67 65 54 67 70 70
(£m)
Accidents (£m) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Greenhouse -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
emissions (£m)
Local Air Quality 0 0 0 0 0 0
(£m)
Noise (£m) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Benefits (£m) 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799
Benefit: Cost Ratio

Present Value of 765 765 765 830 488 553
Project Cost (£m) -
including OBU
Net Revenue (£m, 66 58 28 66 92 92
PV)
Indirect Taxation 3 2 2 3 3 3
Loss (£m, PV)
Present Value of 1042 1112 1317 1042 799 799
Social Benefit (£m) -
PVB
Present Value of 1045 1115 1319 1045 802 802
Project Benefit (£m)
PVC (£m) 698 707 736 764 395 461
NPV (£m) 347 408 583 281 407 341
BCR 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7
BCR 1.4 – 1.8 1.7 – 2.0
Economic Appraisal inputs: London bespoke values of time
Economic Appraisal outputs: Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values
Note demand for 4tph sensitivity may be overstated as it is based on the same demand model response as 8tph scenario
91
4 Commercial Case
4.1 Description
4.1.1.1 The role of the Commercial Case is to provide details on the commercial
structure, procurement approach and accounting implications of the
project. This section sets out how TfL, Network Rail and the WLA would
approach procurement and commercial aspects of this project.
4.2 Procurement strategy, sourcing options and accounting implications

4.2.1.1 TfL and Network Rail have extensive experience in the procurement and
construction of major infrastructure projects, with construction works
having been undertaken in constrained and highly populated areas of
London. Examples of such projects include the extension of the London
Overground from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction and major station
improvement works including those at King’s Cross St Pancras and
Stratford.
Strategy and sourcing options
4.2.1.2 The project is supported by the Mayor and the West London Alliance and
is being developed by TfL, in collaboration with Network Rail. If the project
progresses then through close collaboration with these stakeholder groups
would be ensured.
4.2.1.3 It is expected that the construction stage of the project would be led by TfL
or by Network Rail as the owner and provider of Great Britain’s National
Rail infrastructure. At this time the potential location of worksites has not
been determined and hence the need for Compulsory Purchase powers
beyond the boundary of railway land is unknown, although any future
Transport and Works Act Order process would address this issue.
4.2.1.4 Assuming that the project progresses and that further design details are
determined, a procurement strategy would be developed that would
incorporate the necessary design aspects, the approach to the operation
and management and the approach to the financing of the project. This
strategy would consider potential funding sources, as established in the
Financial Case, and risks associated with each of the aforementioned
elements.
4.2.1.5 It is envisaged that the service would be operated by London Overground.

Achieving efficiencies
4.2.1.6 Because of the extensive experience that TfL and Network Rail have in
delivering extensions to the London Overground network; both
92
organisations would be able to achieve efficiencies in the delivery of the

project. Network Rail also has the benefit of being the delivery agent of
many railway infrastructure projects across the UK.
4.2.1.7 Best practice would be incorporated from TfL and Network Rail’s prior
approaches to railway construction works and procurement.
External project support
4.2.1.8 It is anticipated that consultancy support would be required in the following

areas, in order to support future scheme development and consents
processes:
a) Legal
b) Environmental Impact Assessment
c) Engineering
d) Transport Planning
e) Planning and Socioeconomics
f) Architecture and Urban Design
g) Cost Estimating
h) Property Surveyors/ Land Referencing
Accounting implications
4.2.1.9 An assessment of the likely accounting treatment of any commercial

structure under ESA95/10 would need to be undertaken to determine
whether the project is likely to be treated as ‘off budget’ and therefore
whether liabilities would score towards TfL borrowing.
4.3 Construction and operation

4.3.1.1 TfL would ensure that best practice is adopted in the construction and
operation of the project and methods to mitigate construction impacts
would be investigated.
4.3.1.2 As a public body, TfL has to meet the requirements of the Mayor of
London’s Responsible Procurement Policy consisting of the following
themes:
a) Environmental sustainability
b) Supplier diversity
93
c) Community benefits
d) Skills and employment
e) Fair employment
f) Ethical sourcing
4.3.1.3 In compliance with the GLA Group Responsible Procurement Policy, all
potential suppliers would be required to consider these elements in their
bid as part of any Invitation to Tender (ITT) for any future project support or
the design and build contract. Any appointed consultant or contractor
would be subject to a supplier performance plan.
4.3.1.4 It is understood that Network Rail operates similar requirements.
Supply chain utilisation
4.3.1.5 Although TfL undertakes procurement for projects implemented in the

capital, the wider benefits to the UK of said projects are extensive.
Services that TfL procures from outside of London for the construction of
the West London Orbital would add to the pipeline of capital investment
that supports jobs across the UK.
4.3.1.6 The procurement strategy for this stage of the project would be refined and
improved if it is progressed further.
94
5 Financial Case
5.1 Description
5.1.1.1 The role of the Financial Case is to set out the project and ongoing
operating costs and financing and funding arrangement to deliver the
scheme.
5.2 Financial Impact of the Project
5.2.1.1 The estimated capital cost of the scheme, excluding adjustments for
optimism bias and contingencies, is £152m in 2017/18 prices. Due to the
very early nature of this estimate, an 80% adjustment was added to reach
an estimate of £273m. These figures are based on work done by WSP for
the West London Alliance in 2017 64 with the additional costs for Lionel
Road station based on work done by WSP for LB Hounslow65.
Construction is forecast to start early 2020s and continue until
approximately 2028/29. We have also considered a sensitivity which
increases costs by £100m to account for possible further costs accruing to
the scheme through additional scope. Table 41 sets out the scheme costs
in 2017/18 prices, outturn prices (the expected final cost upon completion
of the scheme) and 2010 prices (PV) (as required by WebTag guidance for
the generation of the BCR) for both the core estimate and cost sensitivity.
Table 41: Capital Costs
66
Price base 2017/18 prices Outturn Discounted, £m PV, 2010 values
Core estimate £273m £321m £179m
Cost sensitivity £373m £440m £244m
5.2.1.2 Significant portions of the existing line that would be used for the scheme
are not electrified. The figures in the capital cost estimate do not account
for the electrification of these sections. This could be needed if it were
decided not to run diesel services and/or battery powered trains are not
considered suitable for the line.
5.2.1.3 Operating costs of the scheme are projected to be £26m per year and
revenue effect for TfL from just the WLO is forecast to be £15m. Net of
revenue abstracted from other TfL services, the net revenue is estimated
to be £4m67. Operations are forecasted to start in 2026 (phase 1) and 2029
(phase 2).
64
West London Orbital Rail: Technical Analysis and Conclusions. WSP (2017)
65
Lionel Road Proposed Railway Station: Transport Business Case – Technical Report. WSP (2014)
66
Assuming a 2026 delivery for Phase 1
67
Mott MacDonald Funding Study. 8tph scenario
95
5.2.1.4 The capital costs of the scheme are currently not part of the TfL Business
Plan and there are no external sources of funding currently allocated to the
delivery of the WLO. For the scheme to be taken forward delivery funding
would need to be identified and operational costs would need to be
balanced against revenue.
5.3 Capital Costs Funding
5.3.1.1 The following funding sources have been considered for the capital costs
of this scheme68:
 Development gains: Developer contributions (e.g. Community
Infrastructure Levy) and development profit on public sector owned sites
 Incremental business rates: Business rates generated due to new

development unlocked by the scheme
 Wider contributions: DfT contributions, TfL contributions etc.
5.3.1.2 Analysis of CIL and business rates funding sources for capital costs was
done on the basis of 50 per cent attribution of the different funding sources
to the scheme. This is consistent with the fact that other infrastructure
requirements would also need to be met with the analysed funding
sources. Analysis of direct development proceeds raised assumed 100 per
cent allocation to the WLO scheme. Further work should consider other
potential sources of funding, including planning obligations and
Government programmes like the Housing Infrastructure Fund.
Development gains
5.3.1.3 A number of potential development sites have been identified along the
route of the scheme. Potential unlocked by the scheme would provide
opportunities for development of public sector owned sites as well as for
CIL receipts from other projects.
5.3.1.4 Potential CIL receipts were calculated on the basis of development

unlocked by the scheme and based on CIL rates relevant to each authority
(Table 42). The analysis assumes 35 per cent of residential development
is exempt from CIL to account for the provision of affordable housing. Two
scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario
delivering 8,800 units from which CIL can be captured and a Maximum
Development scenario delivering 29,300 units from which CIL can be
captured. These correspond to the scenarios outlined in Section 2.7.2.
96
Table 42: CIL Revenue

Estimated CIL revenues Real (17/18) Nominal Present Value
WLO Dependent Development scenario £45.0m £79.8m £31.3m

Maximum Development Scenario £128.4m £227.7m £89.3m
Source: WLO Funding Study analysis
5.3.1.5 Public sector bodies could also realise gains by directly developing publicly
owned sites along the WLO route (Table 43). This analysis included sites
from a variety of public sector bodies. Stakeholder cooperation would be
required to achieve the funding included in Table 43. Some of the sites
analysed may be allocated to other projects already, and the costs and
complexity of buying out leaseholds was not taken into consideration. Two
scenarios were analysed, a WLO Dependent Development scenario
delivering and a Maximum Development scenario.
Table 43: Direct Development Proceeds
Estimated Direct Development Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present
Value
WLO Dependent Development scenario £29m £40m £20m
Maximum Development Scenario £35m £44m £22m
Incremental Business Rates

5.3.1.6 The improvements in connectivity brought by the scheme would increase
land values of existing properties around each station, which would lead to
increased LPA business rates income. A 1km area of influence was
assumed for each station along the line.
5.3.1.7 In addition to existing land value increases, new commercial development

enabled by the scheme would also provide incremental LPA business rate
income.
5.3.1.8 The replacement of rateable value for current sites with the one for new
development causes negative business rates income during the
development period of the scheme. This means that, while significant,
positive business rates income is not assumed to begin until around 2040.
Business rates growth proceeds are summarised in Table 44.
68
Other funding sources may be available that have not been modelled in the study e.g. workplace
parking levy, incremental commercial income via over-site development. With any additional developer
contribution, consideration is needed as to its marginal impact on development viability.
97
Table 44: Business Rates Growth

Estimated Business Rates Growth Proceeds Real (17/18) Nominal Present
Value
WLO Dependent Development scenario £299m £482m £109m
Maximum Development Scenario £550m £965m £208m
Wider Contributions
5.3.1.9 Other funding sources such as TfL contributions and workplace parking
levies, among others were considered for this scheme. The stressed
financial position of TfL and complex implementation of some of these
other alternatives means that they were considered unlikely to yield
funding for the scheme at the time of analysis.
Capital costs funding conclusions

5.3.1.10 While CIL and public-sector development are within the powers of the
LPAs affected by the scheme, retention of income from business rates
growth by each LPA would require the 1km zones of influence around of
each station to be designated as an Enterprise Zone by the UK
Government for up to 25 years (or an equivalent policy instrument would
need to be implemented by the UK Government).
5.3.1.11 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7

year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for
the scheme are projected to begin only after 2029. This means that there
would be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme.
5.3.1.12 The temporal mismatch of capital costs with available funding sources is
a significant challenge that would need to be addressed for the viability of
the scheme.
5.3.1.13 The challenge mentioned above is substantial. Although Figure 35 shows

that selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the
scheme69, further work to confirm and then secure the necessary funding
is required.
69
Public-sector financing scenario assuming 3 per cent fixed interest loan
98
Figure 35: Cash/debt balance
400,000,000
350,000,000
300,000,000
250,000,000
£
200,000,000
150,000,000
100,000,000
50,000,000
0
01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01
Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan
18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Debt balance Cash balance
5.4 Operating Costs Funding
5.4.1.1 The following matters have been considered for the operating costs of this
scheme:
 Revenue forecasting: Additional analysis to the revenue forecasts,
including different factors, to assess the true impact of fares in the
affordability of the operating side of the scheme
 Different levels of services: Analysis of various ways to run the services

in order to attempt to keep operating costs affordable
 Other options: Alternative rolling stock options, potential for non-farebox

income
Passenger Revenue
5.4.1.2 The core scenario outlined below represents an 8tph service (4tph from
Kew Bridge to Hendon and 4tph from Hounslow to West Hampstead).
Passenger revenue for the 8tph scenario is outlined in Table 45.
5.4.1.3 An annual income from the WLO of £15m is offset by revenue abstracted
from other TfL services, resulting in a generation of £4m of net revenue.
99
Table 45: Passenger Revenue (8tph scenario, 2031), £m, 2017 prices
Annual Annual passenger journeys Annual
passenger Revenue
kms (2017
prices)
Crossrail 5.92 -0.01 1.34
National Rail (other services) -9.24 0.22 -1.59
Bus -23.05 -4.42 -4.21
Total 22.84 3.31 2.27
Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 32.08 3.08 3.86
5.4.1.4 Alternative service patterns that could be used to manage cost would have
an impact on passenger revenue. The most beneficial alternate is a 4tph
service from Hounslow to Hendon. Passenger revenue for the 4tph
sensitivity is outlined in Table 46.
Table 46: Passenger Revenue (4tph sensitivity, 2031), £m, 2017 prices
Annual Annual Annual Revenue
passenger kms passenger (2017 prices)
journeys
Crossrail 6.33 0.05 1.43
National Rail (other services) -9.60 -0.24 -1.65
Bus -17.69 -3.23 -3.23
Total 23.84 2.16 3.15
Net impact to TfL (excluding franchised rail) 33.44 2.41 4.80
Operating Costs
5.4.1.5 Alternative service patterns could be used to manage operating costs. The
most beneficial alternate option is a 4tph service from Hounslow to
Hendon. Operating costs for the core scenario and 4tph alternative are
outlined in Table 47.
Table 47: Operating Costs
Core Scenario (2018/19 4tph sensitivity (2018/19
prices) prices)
Variable Usage Charge £0.3m £0.3m
Fixed Track Access Charge £6.1m £3.2m
Diesel Fuel Costs £1.3m £0.7m
Staff Costs (drivers) £7.3m £3.8m
Rolling Stock Lease £7.8m £4.2m
Rolling Stock Maintenance £3.3m £1.7m
Total £26.3m £13.8m
Source: TfL
100
5.4.1.6 Station operating costs are missing from the above analysis. Four new
stations would require operation70, and assuming and indicative annual
operating cost per station of £0.3m (covering staffing, maintenance,
utilities, and cleaning) this adds a further £1.2m per year to operating
costs.
Other Options
5.4.1.7 Alternative rolling stock options represent an opportunity to lower operating
costs, therefore improving the operating funding position for the scheme. A
series of alternative rolling stock options were evaluated on a high level
(see Table 48).
Table 48: Alternative Rolling Stock Assessment
Lease Maintenance Energy Quality of Reliability Performanc Availability
Cost Cost consumption interior e
Class 769 Lowest Unknown Low Upgrade req Unknown Medium Soon
Class 755 Highest Unknown Unknown New build Unknown Unknown New Build
Class 379 High Unknown Low Refurbishment High Good Not currently
may be available
needed
Class 350 High Unknown Medium Refurbishment Very Good In
Flex may be High development
needed
Hybrid Medium Unknown Highest Refurbishment Medium Medium In
DMU may be development
needed
5.4.1.8 Additional options such as non-farebox income (e.g. station retail) have
been studied in outline. They were not considered significant enough to
materially change the operating funding requirement.
Operating costs funding conclusions

5.4.1.9 Annual operating costs of £14-26m, compared to WLO passenger revenue
of £12-15m (at 2031 demand levels) shows a challenging funding
requirement and need for a significant operating subsidy.
5.4.1.10 The low level of passenger revenue relative to operating costs is

significantly influenced by the nature of the WLO as an orbital train service,
not directly serving central London and mostly contained within Travelcard
fare zones 3 and 4. These characteristics, and the fact that the WLO
creates new direct journey opportunities that abstract from other modes,
leads to a decrease in average fare yield that offsets the income from new
public transport trips.
70
Harlesden, Lionel Road, Old Oak Common Victoria Road, Neasden. Brent Cross West assumed to be
part of existing operational station by time of opening.
101
5.4.1.11 Housing and commercial development stimulated by the WLO creates

opportunity for increased passenger revenue that could be significant in
reducing the need for operating subsidy. This would be a matter for further
consideration in future stages of the project.
5.4.1.12 Options to remove any operating subsidy will need to be identified as part
of future phases of scheme development work.
102
6 Management Case
6.1 Description
6.1.1.1 The role of the Management Case is to assess whether a proposal is
deliverable. It reviews evidence from similar projects, sets out project
planning, governance structure, risk management, stakeholder
management, benefits realisation and assurance.
6.1.1.2 TfL and/ or Network Rail would prepare an Assurance and Approvals Plan.
6.1.1.3 A Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for the project. Prior
consultation on the proposed Old Oak Overground stations has indicated
that there is local support for the introduction of passenger services on the
Dudding Hill line in west London.
6.1.1.4 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles and TfL
would ensure robust project reporting mechanisms are in place.
6.2 Evidence of deliverability, based on previous projects

6.2.1.1 TfL has extensive experience in developing, promoting and implementing
significant infrastructure projects and securing necessary consents
required.
6.2.1.2 This includes network extensions such as the Northern Line Extension on
the London Underground network and the East London Line Extension
from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction on the London Overground
network. TfL also has experience in delivering new/ upgraded stations on
the existing rail network such as Langdon Park DLR station and Wood
Lane tube station.
6.3 Consents Strategy
6.3.1.1 A Consents Strategy has been prepared which sets out the preferred
approach for obtaining the consents needed for the WLO scheme. It has
been identified that the principal consent likely to be required to authorise
the works (including land acquisition) is a Transport and Works Act Order
(TWAO). There are also other types of planning, heritage and
environmental consents that are likely to be required. The Strategy is a live
document that would be subject to ongoing internal review and be updated
as necessary.
6.3.1.2 The project would have a dedicated TfL Consents Advisor(s). Supported
by the west London LPAs through the WLA, they would provide guidance
on all planning matters, be involved in discussions and negations with the
relevant local planning authorities and stakeholders and manage external
103
planning and environmental specialists undertaking assessment work and

preparing the documents required for submissions. The Consents
Advisor(s) would be involved in the preparation and submission of the
consents applications, post-submission work such as preparing for a
Planning Inquiry, drafting representations and conditions, and post-
decision work such as secondary consents (approval of details or
amending conditions).
6.4 Project assumptions

6.4.1.1 At this early stage some key project assumptions have to be made. The
management case has been prepared on the basis of TfL’s approach but
this is subject to change if there is a change of project sponsor and/ or
delivery agent.
6.4.1.2 It is assumed that TfL would cooperate with and have support from WLA
LPAs, Network Rail and other relevant organisations regarding the
progression of the WLO project.
6.4.1.3 A funding study has been commissioned by Mott MacDonald, and has
been used to inform the Economic case and Financial case. It is assumed
that sufficient funding would be available to support the planning and
development stages of the project although no funding has been formally
secured.
6.4.1.4 It is assumed that land required for the build and operation of new railway
infrastructure could be acquired through the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act (2004).
6.5 Project risk

6.5.1.1 TfL considers the scheme to be relatively standard in terms of project risk,
given the company’s extensive experience in revitalising underutilised
railway infrastructure, notably the extension of the London Overground
from Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction.
6.5.1.2 Project risk would be actively managed according to best practice

principles and the stage at which the project is at. The full involvement of
the GLA, Network Rail and west London LPAs and through the WLA would
help minimise planning policy and other regulatory risks.
6.5.1.3 Some risk is carried in the aforementioned assumptions that are necessary
to make, at this stage.
6.5.1.4 Should the scheme be developed further, a comprehensive risk

management strategy would be implemented which would improve the
accuracy of forecast costs and economic appraisal.
104
6.6 Governance
6.6.1.1 TfL would ensure that strong project governance principles are followed.
6.6.1.2 An organisational structure has been proposed, which is subject to change

as project requirements and external processes are identified in a detailed
manner.
Figure 36: Proposed project governance structure
6.6.1.3 The project would be subject to both TfL and local authority governance
procedures.
6.6.1.4 At this stage, the project is overseen by a working group at TfL. The group
meets fortnightly and meets regularly with WLA LPAs and Network Rail.
6.7 Assurance
6.7.1.1 The assurance and approvals process would follow TfL’s established
project assurance procedures which include assurance at three levels:
internal, Programme Management Office (PMO) and external.
105
Internal assurance procedure
6.7.1.2 TfL uses a number of mechanisms to improve the management of its

major projects in order to ensure the objectives and benefits of a scheme
at inception are realised following implementation. TfL’s project
management framework, known as Pathway, provides consistency in
approach and the tools required for planning and delivery teams, whilst
retaining flexibility in its application to manage and control a project.
Embedded into Pathway is a delivery assurance process using stage
gates, upon which TfL utilises industry-leading external expertise to review
and challenge all aspects of the project.
6.7.1.3 The number and timing of the stage gates are established by the delivery
organisation, based on guidance in Pathway, and informed by a
characterisation tool that considers project factors such as scale,
complexity, novelty, project team experience and strategic importance. A
number of products are required to be completed to provide evidence at
the stage gate that the project is fit to proceed to the next stage.
6.7.1.4 Products are outputs that are signed off by authorised individuals, and
include such documents as project execution plans, risk management
plans, project estimates and design compliance certificates.
6.7.1.5 Underlying these stage gates are a number of assurance activities

conducted by both TfL and the suppliers and include activities such as
design reviews, safety assessments, risk reviews, commercial
assessments, estimate validation, material testing and product testing.
Programme Management Office review
6.7.1.6 The PMO is part of TfL but is not accountable for delivery. These reviews
are typically Integrated Assurance Reviews (IAR), undertaken by a
combination of PMO staff, consultant external experts (EE) or peer groups
from outside the delivery organisation.
External assurance procedure
6.7.1.7 TfL has the option of establishing an Independent Peer Review Group
(IPRG). This approach has been followed for other major TfL projects. If
appropriate, the IPRG could be appointed should the project progress
further.
Network Rail assurance process
6.7.1.8 The project would also be subject to Network Rail’s Governance for
Railways Investment Projects (GRIP) assurance process.
106
6.8 Communication and stakeholder management

6.8.1.1 Prior consultation on the proposed Old Oak Common London Overground
stations has indicated that there is support for the introduction of
passenger services on the Dudding Hill line, which is within the scope of
the WLO project.
6.8.1.2 A comprehensive Stakeholder Management Plan would be prepared for

the project in conjunction with the west London LPAs. The project team
would be responsible for keeping stakeholders appropriately engaged.
6.8.1.3 The Stakeholder Management Plan would provide a brief on the objectives
of the stakeholder engagement, target audience and methodology. This
would be updated and expanded as required.
6.8.1.4 Currently, quarterly project updates are provided to a stakeholder group.

Members of this group include WLA LPAs and Network Rail.
6.9 Project reporting

6.9.1.1 The project reporting regime would follow best practice principles. TfL
would develop programme controls supported by robust reporting
processes.
6.9.1.2 These would align with the project governance framework, integrating key
stakeholder requirements, facilitating continuous monitoring and
incorporating accurate performance measurement. The purpose of this is
to provide accurate provide accurate project information in a timely manner
to ensure well informed decisions are made and appropriate action is
taken.
6.10 Project milestones and timescales

6.10.1.1 Table 49 outlines key project milestones.
Table 49: Project milestones

Milestone Description Date
Further feasibility 2019-2020

Planning, Design, Approval and Procurement 2021-2022
Construction Early 2020s
Operation  2026 for Phase 1
 2029 for Phase 2
107
7 Summary
7.1 Overall Assessment
7.1.1.1 The WLO scheme has the potential to address three critical strategic
issues facing west and north west London
 A new rail service could bring land into use for housing and
employment, and link Opportunity Areas and town centres together to
drive sustainable growth in the sub-region.
 A new orbital transport link would provide the connectivity needed to

address public transport severance between west and north London,
notably between Opportunity Areas at Old Oak/Park Royal and Brent
Cross/Cricklewood. The WLO would enable direct journeys between the
Hounslow Loop and North London line, enabling people from across west
and north west London to directly access employment clusters such as
the Great West Corridor’s ‘Golden Mile’ and Park Royal. Furthermore, by
providing a high quality orbital public transport link, with interchanges with
key radial routes at Brent Cross West, Neasden, Harlesden, Old Oak and
Hounslow, the WLO would make enable one-stop journeys to multiple
employment centres and Opportunity Areas across the sub-region for
residents and in-commuters from the Wider South East.
 The provision of new public transport and connectivity could deliver

benefits to the wider transport system. The WLO could encourage
mode shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes which would help to
reduce congestion. The scheme would provide crowding relief on some
of the busiest rail lines in the sub-region, such as the Piccadilly line.
7.1.1.2 The 8tph WLO scheme has been tested, alongside sensitivities
considering an alternative 4tph service pattern, and the impacts of
development along route. The benefit to cost ratio for an 8tph service is
between 1.4 and 1.8; the benefit to cost ratio for a 4tph service is between
1.7 and 2.0. This indicates that the scheme has medium to high value for
money.
7.1.1.3 The majority of capital costs would be incurred over an approximately 7

year period between 2022-2029, but most revenue streams available for
the scheme are projected to begin after 2029. This means that there would
be a major funding gap in the early stages of the scheme. Although
selected funding sources could be sufficient to cover the costs of the
scheme on present value terms, further work to confirm and then secure
the necessary funding is required.
108
7.1.1.4 Operating costs exceed revenue for both the 8tph scheme and alternative
4tph scheme. Further work would be required to close this subsidy gap.
Housing growth could create opportunity for increased revenue.
7.2 Next Steps
7.2.1.1 Based on the conclusions of this SOBC, there is a strong case for the
scheme to be taken forward to the next stage of business case
development.

identify the preferred service pattern, develop a financing strategy, and
further develop options to close the subsidy gap relating to operating costs.
109
8 Glossary
Glossary
Community Planning charge introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local
Infrastructure Levy authorities to deliver infrastructure to support development. New
(CIL) development of more than 100sqm or 1 dwelling is potentially liable for the
levy.
Fixed Track Access Charge payable by franchised passenger operators that recovers any
Charge remaining income required to meet Network Rail’s total revenue
requirement.
Good Growth The concept of delivering new homes, neighbourhoods and workspaces in a
way that creates successful, inclusive and sustainable places. In a transport
context this involves designing places that better facilitate active travel and
the use of public transport, rather than the private car.
Healthy Streets Approach to planning that puts people and their health at the centre of
Approach decision making. Adopted by TfL to improve air quality, reduce congestion
and help make London’s diverse communities greener, healthier and more
attractive places to live and work.
Independent Peer A group of independent subject experts that are selected to scrutinise a
Review Group (IPRG) [transport] project.
London Transportation Multi-modal strategic transport model of London and its surrounds. LTS
Studies Model (LTS) models how many trips there are likely to be, their origins and destinations
and their modes of transport. Used to assess the impact of a transport
scheme or development.
Opportunity Area Designated area of major brownfield land in London that has significant
capacity for development, typically being able to accommodate at least
5,000 new jobs and/ or 2,500 new homes.
Railplan Strategic Public Transport Model for London and the South East. Calculates
the likely route and service choices of public transport users and the
resulting levels of crowding on public transport networks.
Strategic Housing Technical study used to determine the quantity and suitability of land
Land Availability potentially available for housing development. A London-wide SHLAA is
Assessment (SHLAA) carried out to determine borough housing targets, which form a key part of
the London Plan.
Web-Based Application uses PTAL to assess connectivity to the public transport

Connectivity network, combining walk time to the network with service wait times.
Assessment Toolkit Through the use of Time Mapping Analysis (TIM), connectivity throughout
(WebCAT) the transport network (i.e. how far a traveller can go) is expressed as a
series of travel time catchments.
110
List of Acronyms
CAZ Central Activities Zone

CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
DfT Department for Transport
FTAC Fixed Track Access Charge
GLA Greater London Authority
GRIP Governance for Railway Investment Projects
GWML Great Western Main Line
HS2 High Speed 2
IPRG Independent Peer Review Group
LB "_" London Borough of "_"
LPA Local Planning Authority
LSIS Locally Significant Industrial Site
LTS London Transportation Studies Model
MTS Mayor's Transport Strategy
NFE Total Financial Effect
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
NPV Net Present Value
OA Opportunity Area
OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework
ORR Office for Rail and Road
PMO Project Management Office
PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level
PV Present Value of Project Cost
PVB Present Value of Social Benefit
SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
SIL Strategic Industrial Land/ Location
SOBC Strategic Outline Business Case
TfL Transport for London
TIM Time Mapping Analysis
TPH Trains per Hour
TWAO Transport Works Act Order
WebCAT Web-Based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit
WLA West London Alliance
WLO West London Orbital
WTT Working Timetable
111

2019 06 West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 06 West London Orbital Strategic Outline Business Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West London Orbital – Strategic Outline Business Case

0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

0.1.1.3 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018)

0.2 Strategic Case

0.2.1.4 Some of this growth will be accommodated in Opportunity Areas at Burnt

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

 Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters in LB

Map data ©2019 Google

0.2.1.11 This severance limits public transport connectivity between areas of

Brent Cross and Cricklewood, and the future large-scale employment

region will be relatively limited outside of changes to the bus network to

 Additional public transport capacity is needed in the long-term to alleviate pressure

0.2.1.19 As a result of poor orbital public transport connectivity, many north-south

Figure 5: Inter peak traffic delay (Harlesden – Hendon; Kew – Acton)

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

Table 4: Qualitative assessment against policy alignment, objectives and complexity of

Light rail Depends on High Medium High High

The case for the WLO

Figure 6: WLO core option service pattern (8tph)

Figure 7: WLO alternative service pattern (4tph)

to Watford, Stanmore and Luton

and Great Western Railway

Neasden DC corridors and

to the West End,

New direct link between Hounslow Loop and Old Oak,

road network and improve air quality. Furthermore, by providing

0.3 Economic Case

0.3.1.9 In addition to these benefits, externalities resulting from an increase in rail

Table 8: Appraisal results (60 years)

0.4 Commercial Case

0.5 Financial Case

0.5.1.4 Although the assessed selected funding sources could be sufficient to

Debt balance Cash balance

Source: WLO Funding Study analysis.

Table 10: Annual operating costs

0.6 Management Case

0.6.1.4 Table 11 outlines key indicative project milestones.

Table 11: Project milestones

1 The Approach to the Business Case

2.1.1.2 The scheme is included in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) as

2.1.1.4 The strategic case is structured into eight sections

2.2 Strategic context and the case for change

2.2.1 London is growing

2.2.1.2 Despite its success, London’s future international competitiveness is

2.2.1.4 To accommodate the expected rate of population growth, the London

Figure 11: Great West Corridor: ‘The Golden Mile’

2.2.3 Improved public transport provision is needed to enable denser

High population growth is

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

arc stretching between LB Barnet and LB Hounslow, with ten year

High employee job growth in some outer

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

Centre (3,900 new homes) and a range of locally-identified and designated

© Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Ordnance Survey 100035971

2.2.3.9 The success of these regional employment centres depends on easy

 New public transport connectivity is needed to overcome severance between

 Better connectivity is needed between town centres and employment clusters

Mode share and connectivity context

Source: Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018

South 70% 54%

transport connectivity throughout the entire sub-region, so that journey

Map data ©2019 Google

 Connectivity between west and north west London, relating to