# Integrated Impact Assessment Of The Consultation Draft Mayor'S Transport Strategy 3 Iia Report Appendices

## Integrated Impact Assessment Of The Consultation Draft Mayor'S Transport Strategy 3

Project No: 
B2228400 
Document Title: 
IIA Report Appendices - Part II 
Revision: 
Draft 2 
Date: 
6 June 2017 
Client Name: 
Transport for London Project Manager: 
Mason Baker Author: 
Irina Davis File Name: 
Document2 Jacobs U.K. Limited New City Court 20 St Thomas Street London SE1 9RS United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7939 6100 F +44 (0)20 7939 6103 www.jacobs.com 
© Copyright 2017 Jacobs. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document Limitation:  This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs' client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client.  Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.  

## Document History And Status

| Revision    | Date       | Description                                 | By       | Review       | Approved    |
|-------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|----------|--------------|-------------|
| Draft 1     | 14.04.2017 | Draft IIA Report Appendices Document Part 2 | I. Davis | E. Bergin    | J. Pounder  |
| Draft 2     | 06.06.2017 | Draft IIA Report Appendices Document Part 2 | I. Davis | L. Koumpoura | J. Pounder  |
|             |            |                                             |          |              |             |
|             |            |                                             |          |              |             |
|             |            |                                             |          |              |             |
|             |            |                                             |          |              |             |

## Contents

| Appendix A. Quality Assurance Checklist                                                     |     |   3 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-----|
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix B. TfL Responses to representations on MTS IIA Scoping Report (November 2016)      | 5   |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix C. Baseline data across all IIA topics and analysis of trends                      | 20  |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix D. MTS iterations register                                                         |     |  41 |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix E. Consultation Draft MTS 3 Options IIA Assessment                                 | 49  |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix F. Description of the TfL modelling outputs as the basis for the strategic Options |     |  88 |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix G. Consultation Draft MTS 3 emissions reductions forecast                          | 91  |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix H. General list of 'core' monitoring topics in scope for Travel in London reports  | 93  |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix I. Abbreviations                                                                   | 95  |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
| Appendix J. References                                                                      |     |  97 |
|                                                                                             |     |     |
|                                                                                             |     |     |

## Appendix A. Quality Assurance Checklist

 To ensure that the requirements of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (as required by European Directive EC/2001/42) are adhered to, the following quality assurance checklist has been completed. It identifies where in the IIA process the requirements of SEA will be undertaken. The checklist appears in the Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (September 2005, ODPM) and has been adapted for the purposes of this IIA. Those relevant to this stage are highlighted below. 

 
Information requirement of the SEA Directive (defined by Annex I) 
Section of the IIA Report 

| Objectives and Context                                                         |                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| The plan's or programme's purpose and objectives are made clear.               | Part 2.1, 2.3      |
| Environmental/Sustainability issues and constraints, including international   |                    |
| and EC environmental protection objectives, are considered in developing       |                    |
| objectives and targets.                                                        |                    |
| IIA objectives, where used, are clearly set out and linked to indicators and   |                    |
| targets where appropriate.                                                     |                    |
| Part 5.1                                                                       |                    |
| Links with other related plans, programmes and policies are identified and     |                    |
| explained.                                                                     |                    |
| Part 4.1                                                                       |                    |
| Conflicts that exist between IIA objectives, between IIA and plan objectives   |                    |
| and between IIA objectives and other plan objectives are identified and        |                    |
| described.                                                                     |                    |
| An outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and   |                    |
| its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes.                     |                    |
| Part 2.1, 2.3                                                                  |                    |
| Scoping                                                                        |                    |
|                                                                                |                    |
| Consultation Bodies are consulted in appropriate ways and at appropriate       |                    |
| times on the content and scope of the IIA Report/IIA Scoping Report            |                    |
| Part 1.5                                                                       |                    |
| The assessment focuses on significant issues.                                  | Part 4.4           |
| Technical, procedural and other difficulties encountered are discussed;        |                    |
| assumptions and uncertainties are made explicit.                               |                    |
| Part 3.12                                                                      |                    |
| Reasons are given for eliminating issues from further consideration.           | Part 7.8           |
| Alternatives                                                                   |                    |
|                                                                                |                    |
| Realistic alternatives are considered for key issues, and the reasons for      |                    |
| choosing them are documented.                                                  |                    |
| Part 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6                                                        |                    |
| Alternatives include 'do minimum' and/or 'business as usual' scenarios         |                    |
| wherever relevant.                                                             |                    |
| Part 7.1                                                                       |                    |
| The environmental/sustainability effects (both adverse and beneficial) of      |                    |
| each alternative are identified and compared.                                  |                    |
| Part 7.4, 7.5                                                                  |                    |
| Inconsistencies between the alternatives and other relevant plans,             |                    |
| programmes or policies are identified and explained.                           |                    |
| Part 7.5                                                                       |                    |
| Reasons are given for selection or elimination of alternatives.                | Part 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 |
| Baseline Information                                                           |                    |
| Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and their likely      |                    |
| evolution without the plan or programme are described.                         |                    |
| Part 4.4, 4.5                                                                  |                    |
| Environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected are |                    |
| described, including areas wider than the physical boundary of the plan area   |                    |
| where it is likely to be affected by the plan.                                 |                    |
| Difficulties such as deficiencies in information or methods are explained.     | Part 3.12          |
| Prediction and evaluation of likely significant                                |                    |
| environmental/sustainability effects                                           |                    |
|                                                                                |                    |
| Effects identified include the types listed in the Directive (biodiversity,    |                    |
| population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climate factors,     |                    |
| material assets, cultural heritage and landscape), as relevant; other likely   |                    |
| environmental effects are also covered, as appropriate.                        |                    |
| Both positive and negative effects are considered, and the duration of effects |                    |
| (short, medium or long-term) is addressed.                                     |                    |
| Part 7.5, 10.1, 10.2                                                           |                    |
| Likely secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects are identified where      |                    |
| practicable.                                                                   |                    |
| Part 8.3                                                                       |                    |
Part 4.3, 4.5 
Part 4.1,6.2, 10.1, 10.2 
Part 3.11 
Part 7.5, 10.1, 10.2 
 
Inter-relationships between effects are considered where practicable. 
Part 7.5, 8 
The prediction and evaluation of effects makes use of relevant accepted standards, regulations, and thresholds. 
Part 7.5, 8 
Methods used to evaluate the effects are described. 
Part 6.1, 6.3 
Mitigation measures 
 
Measures envisaged preventing, reducing and offsetting any significant adverse effects of implementing the plan or programme are indicated. 
Part 8.4, 8.5, Part 10 
Issues to be taken into account in project consents are identified. 
Part 8.4. 8.5, Part 10 
The IIA Report 
 
Explains the methodology used. 
Part 6 
Explains who was consulted and what methods of consultation were used. 
Part 1.5 
Identifies sources of information, including expert judgement and matters of opinion. 
Part 6 
A separate NTS has been 
prepared to accompany the 
Contains a non-technical summary covering the overall approach to the IIA, the objectives of the plan, the main options considered, and any changes to the plan resulting from the IIA. 
Draft IIA Report  
Consultation 
 
The IIA is consulted on as an integral part of the plan-making process. 
Part 11.3 
Part 1.5, 11.3 
Consultation Bodies and the public likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the plan or programme are consulted in ways and at times which give them an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinions on the draft plan and IIA Report. 
Decision-making and information on the decision 
 
The IIA Report and the opinions of those consulted are taken into account in finalising and adopting the plan or programme. 
Part 3.10 
An explanation is given of how these have been taken into account. 
Part 3.10 
Reasons are given for choosing the plan or programme as adopted, in the light of other reasonable alternatives considered. 
Part 7 
Monitoring measures 
 
Measures proposed for monitoring are clear, practicable and linked to the indicators and objectives used in the IIA. 
Part 8.5, 8.6 
Monitoring is used, where appropriate, during implementation of the plan or programme to make good deficiencies in baseline information in the IIA. 
Part 8.6 
Monitoring enables unforeseen adverse effects to be identified at an early 
stage. 
Part 8.6 
Proposals are made for action in response to significant adverse effects. 
Part 8.6 

## Appendix B. Tfl Responses To Representations On Mts Iia Scoping Report (November 2016)

Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Four priority IIA 
objectives, p. V. 
Is there any scope to include something here about achieving a natural capital net gain by....? This would help tie together some of the other objectives. 
Environment Agency, Forestry Commission and Natural 
England 
Is there scope to target land owners whose estates directly impact on London strategic transport networks to prioritise GI interventions designed to minimise, contain or slow surface water run-off? 
Table 1: Proposed IIA 
Objectives, Climate Change adaptation and mitigation objective p. vi. 
and transport infrastructure… 
Flood risk objective, p. vi. 
 
Excellent and delighted to see, can this be 
extended to push towards a wider net 
positive for natural capital as a whole? 
Is 
it 
also 
worth 
mentioning 
about 
Natural Capital 
and Natural Environment objective, p. vii. 
 
 
connecting between and across London and the surrounding countryside i.e. to encourage links beyond the political 
boundary of the GLA? 
Infrastructure objective, p. vii. 
and maintained…. Provide multi-functional outcomes as well 
as meet populations etc.... 
Can we add a reference in here to this 
being underpinned by the capital's natural 
capital? 
Economic 
competitiveness 
and employment, vii. 
The IIA cannot seek to achieve this itself as it is not a strategy - this comment 
has been referred to the 
MTS strategy team. No change. This question was redirected to the MTS strategy team, rather than the IIA. No change. Agreed, although should not be limited to just transport as this objective will be used across all GLA strategies. We will amend objective to: To manage the risk of flooding from all sources and improve the resilience of 
people, property and infrastructure to flooding. 
 
Amended. 
This will be reflected in the 
IIA questions posed of each strategy, not in the overall IIA objective. 
No change. This is implicit in 'managed' but can also be considered 
in the questions. 
This complicates the IIA 
objective too much and could be confusing. 
No change. This would become too 
much like a policy and we 
already have an objective on natural capital. No change. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Sustainable Land Use, p. vii. 
Cross-reference back to development delivering net positive outcomes. Include a reference to the residents of these dwellings having access to high 
quality greenspace? 
Housing, Supply, Quality, Choice 
and Affordability, p. vii. Health and health Inequalities, p. vii. 
Highlight the inter-dependencies between attaining this outcome and the quality of the environment. Can we include a reference to the importance of attractive and well-designed infrastructure in here too? e.g. HS2 and Highways England have design panels, can 
we 
also 
ensure 
high 
quality Design, p. vii. 
infrastructure design for London. In line with the SEA Directive, it would be helpful for Section 2 of the Scoping Report 
to 
clarify 
what 
'reasonable 
Chapter 2: The Mayor's Transport 
Strategy, About 
the Strategy, p. 5 
alternatives' / options (if any) the IIA process will appraise. It's left unclear 
currently whether the revised Transport Strategy 
is 
fixed 
or 
whether 
TfL 
considered a range of strategy options to meet IIA objectives? If Jacobs are 
assessing just the one strategy option, 
how was that selected? The clarification need 
not 
be 
lengthy, 
just 
more 
transparent. and heterosexual! 
Noted and amended. 
characteristics:  
Sexual 
Orientation, p. 11.  
Chapter 3 Integrated Impact Assessment purpose, 

Spatial / temporal scope of the IIA, it rightly says the report will take account of potential impacts on adjoining areas outside the GLA boundary. However, I did not see much 'back up' in the following 

This is implicit in 'best' use of land, etc. We could also consider having an IIA question referring to net positive outcomes. Amended. New guide question has been added. This can be covered in the IIA questions where relevant 
- and also it would not 
actually be appropriate for some of the GLA strategies so the objective should not change. No change. This is noted and can be addressed via the IIA questions. No change. There is already a separate IIA objective for infrastructure. No change. At the time of drafting the IIA Scoping Report the MTS alternatives were not yet developed so it was not possible to say with any 
clarity what these could be in the Scoping Report. The transport strategy was not 
yet developed, let alone 
fixed. 
The SEA Directive does not 
specify that the Scoping Report needs to include detail of the strategy 
alternatives. No change. 

The Greater London Authority area is the area considered to be significantly affected by the MTS, rather than adjoining areas, which 

Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
report of such effects, in line with the SEA Directive requirement to include 'the environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected'. 
process and approach. 
Section 3.11: Spatial and temporal Scope of the IIA. 
it would be helpful to have a reference to '… and green infrastructure' as it's not just 
about 'green spaces', and impacts on GI in terms of connectivity and functionality, and the potential contribution of the MTS 
seems a little under-represented in the 
Scoping Report. 
Chapter 4: Identifying other 
plans, programmes and sustainability objectives (Task A1).  
Section 4.2: Implications of the Policy Review, Natural Environment, p. 17. Climate Change, 
p. 17.  
Suggest this includes the 'need to adapt to and mitigate for the increased likelihood of 
extreme 
weather 
events, 
and 
temperature rises'. That would cover matters like flooding, and urban heat island effects etc. which the report subsequently talks about. The SEA Directive (Annex I) requires the assessment of secondary, cumulative, and synergistic effects. The IIA Scoping 
Report contains limited reference to the assessment 
of 
cumulative 
effects, 
between GLA area and outside London. Maybe remedy this with a new subsection in Section 5, Table 5.2 on 'Cumulative and trans-boundary effects'.  
Chapter 5: Baseline 
Information and 
key sustainability issues in London (Tasks A2 & A3).  
Section 5.1: 
Overview, p.19. 
Applicable. 
Agreed and amended. 
 
Table 5.1: Key issues (and subsequent topic areas) for baseline 
Air Quality - 
Habitats 
Regulation 
are not likely to be significantly affected.  The report will take account of any impact on adjoining areas but it is unlikely they will be significant. No change. Agreed. Suggested text has been added. 
Agreed. Suggested text has been added. Jacobs to consider adding a section on 'cumulative and trans-boundary effects' when 
drafting Environmental Report. 
It would not be beneficial to add to the scoping report table 5.2 as this is not 
necessarily forming the 
structure of the Environmental Report. The IIA Full Report will set 
out the predicted cumulative 
impacts across the Draft 
Revised MTS, Draft London Plan, and Draft LES. Noted and will be reflected in the future IIA Report. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Applicable.  
Agreed and amended. 
Assessment (HRA), p. 20. Noise and Vibration - Habitats Regulation Assessment 
(HRA), p. 20.  
Maybe include a new sub-section in Table 5.2 on 'Cumulative and trans-boundary 
effects'?  Should reference any baseline 
data / plans available which are not GLA / London-generated. 
Chapter 5: Baseline 
Information and key sustainability issues in London (Tasks A2 & A3).  
Section 5.2: Identifying significance of issues for the MTS, p. 23. 
Table 5.2,  
Air Quality - Indicator, p.26. 
Doesn't mention ozone, maybe it should as it's an increasing problem. Transport produces precursor chemicals for ozone formation. However a lot are also transboundary pollutants and if they achieve 
their aims for PM10, NO2 it will reduce 
emissions of the precursors as well.  If it does include, same would thus apply to Table 7.2.  
Natural Capital 
and Natural 
Environment - 
Targets p, 27. 
 
Section does not reference the TfL 'Net 
biodiversity gain' that both TfL and CR2 
are looking to adopt. 
Can we check that the estate owned or maintained as transport infrastructure is 
also being included?  
 
Natural Capital and Natural 
Environment - Current quantified data, p. 27. 
An exercise on collation of existing natural environment data in relation to transport 
assets is required in order to inform strategic transport infrastructure planning. TfL recognises that it holds significant (but 
by no means complete) data sets of this 
type - but it's piecemeal in regard to 
storage and use. It would allow for a 
baseline to be established and therefore inform on Net Positive gain and offer a strategic way forward for protection and 
enhancement of the natural environment (as 
adopted 
by 
other 
transport 
infrastructure providers). 
Natural Capital 
and Natural 
Environment - Key issues, p. 27. 
Suggest  
Delete - Protecting green spaces Replace with - Protecting and improving the functionality and connectivity of green 
spaces, and avoid the erosion of.  
Repeat of comment above. Jacobs to consider adding a 
section on 'cumulative and trans-boundary effects' when 
drafting Environmental Report. It would not be beneficial to add to the scoping report table 5.2 as this is not necessarily forming the structure of the Environmental Report. 
Noted and will be reflected in the future IIA Report. Due to its transboundary nature and, as stated, the fact that actions we take which reduce the other pollutants will also reduce ozone, it is not necessary to include it. No change. 
Noted. 
Noted. 
Will be considered in the MTS development. 
Agreed and amended. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Agreed, brief mention of connections would be beneficial. Agreed and amended. 
Highlight the connections between and opportunities for win-wins between this and the environment section before i.e. GI delivering multiple benefits. Climate Change adaption, mitigation and energy - IIA Topics, p. 28. 
Is there anything about targets around transport 
infrastructure 
adaptation 
to There were no targets provided. No change. 
enhance resilience to climate change i.e. 
use of SUDs, vegetated cooling etc.  
Climate Change adaption, mitigation and 
energy - Targets, 
p. 28.  
 
Agreed and amended. 
Suggest insert - including storms, flash surface water floods and increase fluvial flows and Sea level rise and drought.  
 
Climate Change adaption, mitigation and energy - Key issues, p. 28. Noted. No change agreed. 
Suggest this section includes a comment on ensuring CC measures are win-wins (e.g. unintended AQ impacts from switch to biomass boilers). 
Climate Change adaption, mitigation and energy - Likely 
significant impacts on...Equality groups, p. 28. 
 
Noted. 
Historic Environment - Key issues, p. 30. 
Cultural heritage - Recognition needed on the role that GI plays in supporting the protection and enhancement of heritage assets. 
Noted and amended in the 
Scoping report. 
 
odd stat. Is that date correct? tie back to climate change adaptation 
Suggest adding groundwater flooding as an additional topic in this section. 
Employment - 
Trends, p. 31. 
 
 
Flood Risk - IIA 
Topics, p. 33. Flood Risk - Indicator, p. 33. 
 
Suggest adding a further indicator - Cost to London of transport disruption or 
closure. 
This is very difficult and resource consuming to 
calculate. Also several transport modes are not within TfL's jurisdiction so we 
would not be able to give a 
complete picture. No change 
necessary.  
Flood Risk - 
Targets, p. 33. 
Could we assist with the establishment of 
a target for the resilience of the transport network to flooding? 
Referred to strategy team.  
Will be addressed through monitoring indicators. The data has been provided by TfL. 
Flood Risk - Current quantified data, p. 33. 
This seems to only be related to the LUCRFR, while this is a useful picture 
there is more data available from the TE2100 project and the Surface Water Management Plans that could be collated.  
The 'annualised' flood risk is not easy to 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
understand-what 
exactly 
has 
been 
calculated? 
Agreed and amended. Agreed and amended. 
 
Flood Risk - Evolution without the MTS review, p. 33. 
Suggest delete - fluvial and coastal Replace with - tidal flooding & fluvial flooding. Not sure of the provenance of this data and it may need to be fully referenced. Should include cost to London if transport 
closed/disrupted for a period of time.  I believe TfL holds this data so should be able to have as an indicator. 
Flood Risk - 
Likely significant impacts on Economy, p. 33. 
As per response to similar 
comment above, we do not have the complete picture as we do not control all of London's transport. No change. Agreed and amended. 
Suggest inclusion of an additional point - impact on natural environment and air quality (domestic emissions).      
Housing Supply, Quality, Choice and Affordability - Likely significant effects on Equality, p. 35.  
It is good that this is recognised. 
Noted. 
Design - Key issues, p. 36. 
Agreed and amended. 
Add: biodiversity and air quality. 
Design - Likely significant impacts on Environment, p. 36. 
Suggest additional indicator amount 
of 
materials 
and 
waste 
Agreed and amended. 
Materials and Waste - Indicator, p. 37.   
transported sustainably' i.e. river or rail.  
Suggest insert - and surface water run-off. Agreed and amended. 
 
Water resources 
and quality - Key 
issues, p. 39. 
Agreed and amended. ..and continued significant impact on public health.  
Chapter 6: Key Issues Table 6.1: Key Issues.  
Air Quality - 
Evolution in the absence of the 
MTS review, p. 
41.  
Agreed and amended. 
insert - and connectivity between areas green space.  
Natural Capital and Natural Environment - 
Key issues, p. 41. 
Agreed and amended. 
and reduce costs to economy through fewer hospital admissions. 
Chapter 7: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework (Task A4). 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Agreed and amended. 
contribute to species & habitat resilience. 
Assessment Framework, Environmental - Air Quality, p. 48. Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Environmental - 
Climate change 
adaption and 
mitigation, p. 48.  
Noted. 
Suggest additional question - ·ensuring CC 
measures 
are 
win-wins 
(e.g. 
unintended AQ impacts from switch to biomass boilers). 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Environmental - 
Climate change adaption and 
mitigation, p. 49.  
Agreed and amended. 
 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Environmental - 
Flood risk, p. 49.  
 
Questions not very robust.  Could look at reducing risk to critical infrastructure, avoiding development in FR areas not minimising (depending on type of risk), or 
managing appropriately all development 
at risk of flooding. 
Agreed and amended. 
Suggest three additional questions - · 
Maximise use of innovative waste 
management techniques including smart technology? · 
Encourage the movement of waste 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Environmental - 
Materials and waste, p. 50. 
movements to more sustainable methods 
such as rail and river transport? 
· 
Increase 
opportunities 
to 
move 
materials up the waste hierarchy? 
Agreed and amended. 
Valuing natural capital can support the delivery of wider benefits. 
Suggest additional question -  
'Enable the utilisation and management of 
green space and corridors associated with transport operations  conserve, enhance and create natural and semi-natural 
habits? 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact 
Assessment Framework, Environmental - 
Natural Capital 
and Natural Environment, p. 50. 
 
Agreed and amended. 
role for GI to support this objective Suggest additional question - 
Will there be additional noise impacts on 
designated habitats? 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment 
Framework, 
Economic - Connectivity, p. 
51. Table 7.2: 
Suggest additional question - 
Noted. It was covered under 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Does the strategy encourage the adoption of a more 'circular economy' approach to transport delivery, minimising waste and maximising the re-use and recycling of the waste that is generated? 
Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Economic - Economic competitiveness and employment, p. 52. 
Valuing natural capital can support the 
delivery of wider benefits. 
 
Table 7.2: 
Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Social - Accessibility, p. 52.  
Suggest insert - reduce energy consumption, reduce the use of materials in construction and facilitate the reuse and recycling of materials upon demolition/refurbishment 
Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment Framework, Social - Design 
objective, p. 54. 
Appendix F: Supporting Data for Baseline  
Physical Activity, p. 130.  
Green infrastructure could help deliver more inviting streets by contributing to AQ improvements, shading, places to rest e.g. through living walls and roofs, street trees, pocket parks etc. Support this objective for net positive gain Connectivity 
through 
green 
transport 
corridors and also consider green bridges 
to connect habitats severed by transport 
routes and provide walking/cycling routes. 
Appendix F: Supporting Data for Baseline 
Natural Capital 
and Natural 
Environment- Summary of key issues, 
opportunities, 
implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives, p. 147.  
Also note GI in terms of green walls... 
living roofs, green transport corridors, street trees etc.  
Appendix F: Supporting Data for Baseline 
Climate Change 
adaption and mitigation - 
Summary of key 
issues, 
opportunities, implications from 
the Policy review and IIA 
objectives, p. 151.  
 
Appendix F: Supporting Data 
Recognise benefit of tree and shrub 
planting to help reduce perception of 
waste topic. No change. Noted.  
Noted. This is covered already in the materials & waste, and energy reduction objectives. No change. Noted. Agreed and amended. 
Noted. Covered under 
natural capital and natural 
environment. Agreed and amended. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
noise. 
for Baseline 
Noise and Vibration - Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives, p. 167.  
Is there an opportunity to monitor habitat creation here? 
Appendix G: IIA objectives and proposed indicators. 
Environment - Natural Capital and Natural Environment - Proposed IIA indicators, p. 175 
Monitor biodiversity gain / habitat creation.  It will be discussed with TfL 
Appendix G: IIA objectives and proposed indicators. 
Social - Design - 
Proposed IIA 
indicators, p. 178.  
Just Space 
Engagement and Consultation 
TfL should be mindful of the increasing range of subjects and topics dealt with by an IIA. It is increasingly important to have societal analysts and representatives of community organisations beyond the prescribed bodies to broaden scrutiny and 
inputs. TfL should follow the Supreme Court's endorsement on fair consultation 
exercises. However currently Scoping 
Report is not to be found on the TfL website. And public consultation of the IIA Report alongside the draft revised MTS is 
not to take place until 'Stage D' this it too 
late in the process.  
'Stage B' is not planned to be opened to wider public; however the interested 
persons should be consulted and 
informed.  
It will be discussed with TfL at a later stage. No change at a later stage. No change 
Noted. 
The MTS, and the IIA which is to be done in respect of it, 
are subject to statutory 
consultation processes. When the GLA or TfL consider that it is appropriate 
to consult more widely than 
is prescribed by statute then it does so. In respect of the IIA Scoping Report, it was 
provided to the Consultation 
Bodies as is required, but also to stakeholders through a targeted consultation. 
Given the technical nature of 
the document and also the fact that the IIA itself will be separately consulted on, a 
wider consultation was not 
considered necessary at that 
stage. The public will have 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
 
Proposed Approach to a Revised Strategy 
The approach to the MTS set out in the Scoping Report appears to be driven entirely by the predicted population and trip growth aiming to accommodate this growth, and does not fully recognise the social dimension of sustainable development. Nor does it recognise the 'Fairer and More Equal City' advanced by the Mayor. The social dimensions of 
inclusion, fairness and social integration must be taken into consideration whilst developing the MTS.  
Baseline Data/Key Sustainability. Issues  
Whilst the tabulated information (table 5.2) clearly sets out many IIA topics, it does not set out all IIA topics as promised (para 5.2.1 & 7.1.9) - that table 5.2 summarises baseline data across all IIA topics. 
The social dimension is significantly underrepresented in the table. This in turn 
seems to have steered the 
overwhelmingly environmental content of the identified 4 priority objectives (para 7.1.9). Without meaning to downgrade or 
'de-prioritise' these 4 objectives, social 
and economic sustainability is neglected or side lined. This is perplexing given that elsewhere the 3 dimensions are clearly 
addressed (table 7.2). Note that there are incorrect references to 
25 IIA objectives (para 7.1.7) and no.24 objective (table 7.1). There are only 23 
objectives (table 1 & Appendix G). 
Supporting data 
for baseline 
(appendix F) 
Economic Competitiveness: about half of London's jobs and businesses lie outside the Central Activities Zone. Agglomeration may favour the financial and business 
the opportunity to comment on the draft MTS and IIA at a stage which can still be described as formative and will be able to influence the final documents. Parliament saw fit to design a consultation process for the MTS and the IIA and the 
GLA and TfL intend to fully comply with the requirements imposed. The Scoping Report does not set out in any detail the MTS - lack of consideration of these social dimensions should not be assumed. Inclusion, fairness and social integrations were very much taken into consideration whilst developing the MTS. No change. 
Some of the topics were grouped in Table 5.2 in order to summarise. Table 5.2 represents a 
summary table to set out 
which issues are slightly more pertinent than others in the context of transport 
strategy. The table was not 
designed to repeat what has already been said in the document elsewhere. The 4 
objectives represent a 
balance between social, economic and environmental priority issues. The incorrect references to 
the number of IIA objectives is noted and amended. 
Noted. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
service sectors but not much of London's real and local economic activity. Diseconomies of agglomeration are not restricted to congestion but include, for example, health dis-benefits through 
increased pollution and stress, out competition and extinguishment of valued activities supporting wider economic activity or emerging businesses and 
sectors. The GLA draft Economic Evidence Base February 2016, which has informed the Scoping Report, has received a critical appraisal here 
https://justspace.org.uk/2016/05/28/whatlondon-economy/ . 
Air Quality 1: should be updated to reflect recent High Court judgement confirming "shortest possible time" by adding this phrase to this objective. Objectives and Indicators  
Energy 4: address fuel poverty (remember these objectives will apply to other strategies).              
Sustainable Land Use 15: add to indicator's reference to Green Belt, MOL which has policy equivalence in the current London Plan. 
 
 
Accessibility 18: [proposed] indicator's reference to 500m should be substantially 
reduced in distance to, say 200m. [Ref Appendix G] Design 23: add lifetime to neighbourhoods to reflect current London Plan policy on lifetime neighbourhoods. 
Public Health 
Four Priority 
To reduce emissions and concentrations 
Noted.  
This comment is more relevant to a policy rather than an IIA objective, and 
was therefore referred to the strategy team for their consideration. No change. 
Fuel poverty is covered in the relevant policy and questions. We do not think it would be appropriate to amend the IIA objective. 
 
No change. 
This is implicit in 'best' use of land, etc. Consider having a question referring to net 
positive outcomes. No change. Agreed and amended. 
Not applicable as this is policy (in the current London Plan, not necessarily in the 
new one), and not suitable 
for an objective. No change. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
England 
Objectives 
of harmful atmospheric pollutants Adapts to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events To reduce the threat of climate To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities communities  
Public Health Outcomes Framework 
(PHOF) 
The IIA scoping report does not appear to make reference to the PHOF. The PHOF provides a range of indicators that assist 
with understanding how well public health is being improved and protected. The IIA should not simply aim for high level of environmental protection but also identify areas for improvement.  
Table 1: Specific Comments, Section 1.1.5 Section 5.1.8 
The choice of London sub regions is not clear and does not appear to map against other normally used boundaries. 
Table 7.2 IIA 
topics - Air 
Quality 
Check data within targets as it currently 
refers to annual mean objectives for 
PM10 twice, whilst NOx is not included. 
The statements within the evolution without the MTS review would benefit from references for justification of the 
assumptions There is significant and growing evidence on the health benefits of access to good 
quality green spaces over and above physical activity - see reference below 
Table 7.2 IIA topics - Natural 
capital and natural environment 
Table 7.2 IIA topics - Housing 
supply, quality, choice and 
affordability 
The likely significant impacts on health are listed as levels of physical activity. 
New and existing developments should be encouraged to maximise opportunities for 
active travel through provision of appropriate infrastructure (e.g. cycle 
lanes, cycle parking). TfL has an opportunity to support some of the more 
vulnerable communities through 
improving access to public transport and active travel opportunities especially as most vulnerable Londoners are beginning 
Noted. Will be reviewed to inform monitoring indicators. 
That is the role of the MTS not the IIA. The IIA is done to highlight the potential impacts of the proposed plan (and alternatives) in order to influence decision making, improve the positive impacts and propose mitigation for negative ones. No change.  
These were determined in the London Plan, published by the GLA, and are well established. No change. There is some duplication in 
the questions. Amended. 
This is already reflected in 
the IIA questions specific to 
the MTS. No change. This is already reflected in 
the IIA questions specific to the MTS. No change. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
to occupy many of the outer London boroughs and will experience longer commutes by bus. 
Table 7.2 IIA topics - Health and health inequalities 
The targets currently only refer to physical activity metrics, consideration is needed of links between air pollution and health inequalities 
Table 7.2 IIA 
topics - Design 
Active travel for all ages can be enabled 
through design of built environment and so it would be helpful to see considerations included such as non-slip/ 
trip road surfaces/ lighting/ benches/ safe public conveniences 
Appendix F: Air Quality - ref Page 140 
Figure 5.25 annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 2013 mislabelled should read Figure 5.26 
Historic England 
The transport system's role should be to support all environmental issues, not starting from natural environment.  
Purpose of the IIA Scoping Report. Table 1.1, para 3.1.2 Identifying other plans, programmes, and sustainability. Para 4.2.1 
Thorough research of current national policy and guidance, legislation and Historic England must be undertaken to improve the reports accuracy. In addition, landscape, townscape and public realm should be taken into account when 
discussing heritage. Heritage should have an economic dimension, as it has been noted that heritage isn't taken into consideration in 
the Assessment of Economic Impacts.  
Baseline information and key sustainable 
issues in London. 
Table 5.1 Identifying significance if issues for the 
MTS. Table 5.2  
The definition of the historic environment needs to be broadened out in line with national policy.  
The data gathered has focused only on 
designated heritage assets and not considered other forms of heritage assets 
by local planning authorities, such as a 
locally listed buildings and areas of special character.  
The key issues could be expanded to 
recognise that all forms of infrastructure 
improvements, including major, can have 
This is already reflected in the IIA questions specific to the MTS. No change. 
This is already reflected in the IIA questions specific to the MTS. No change. Agreed and amended. The text for the IIA Scoping report has been developed in conformity with the wording in the NPPF. No change. The detail of what was reviewed by Jacobs can be found in Appendix A (updated version sent to all stakeholders consulted on 
27th October 2016). This was 
considered sufficient. No change. 
Heritage is an issue, but is not a key issue directly addressed and to be solved 
by the transport strategy. No change. 
The data includes other 
forms of heritage assets such as listed buildings. 
More local data would be relevant to a local plan, 
rather than a strategic level London transport strategy. Changes have been made. 
Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
an impact both positive and potentially negative on the significance of all types of heritage assets. 'Likely significance impacts on….' Could be expanded to include impacts upon the significance of all heritage assets and the heritage interests found in the wider historic environment. Suggested that further details need to be provided across all of the headings 
including indicator, targets, current quantified data etc. 
Key issues. Table 6.1 
Under the topic of Historic environment, all types of heritage assets as well as those that may be impacted on must be considered.  
Integrated Impact Assessment Framework. Table 7.2 
Under Historic Environment, Historic England would suggest the assessment guide questions could be amended to reflect national policy and its approach to management of the historic environment. It is suggested that the list provided in 
Historic England's advice on Strategic 
Environmental Assessment, Sustainability 
Appraisal and The Historic Environment should be reviewed.    
 
Appendix A- 
Summary of the 
most relevant 
plans and programmes Appendix F- 
Supporting Data 
for Baseline 
Information generally acceptable. 
However it is clear that the information 
provided appears not to have been carried forward into the main body of the scoping report. The information issued on Townscape is very limited, even though it was identified 
as a component of the topic area.  

## Appendix A

Environment 
Agency, 
Forestry 
Air Quality 
Could perhaps cross ref Borough AQ 
Action Plans (as a group) and the London Local Air Quality Management regime and 
Jacobs included all data that was available at the time for this sustainability topic. 
This table is a summary of only the key issues picked up by the IIA baseline review relevant to the transport strategy, and cannot be exhaustive. No change. 
The questions have been reviewed. This suggestion is more relevant for the 
objectives for local development plans and neighbourhood development. No change. Reviewed and amended. 
 
 
Main body of the report focuses on the most 
significant issues in the 
context of the transport strategy, with all relevant baseline data for each 
sustainability issue 
presented at the end of the document to avoid unnecessary repetition and 
to make the Report more 
accessible and easy to read. 
No change. 
 
The Appendix A summaries 
relevant plans, programmes and strategies. Research, 

Organisation 
Part of the 
Document 
Issues raised 
TfL Response 
Commission 
and Natural 
England 
guidance https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/pollution-and-airquality/working-london-boroughs 
Climate Change Risk Assessment, Defra, 2012 
CCRA and NAP (p74) are due for review  - due by 2017, Some themes and 
objectives may change at this point, so this review needs to be considered 
This should refer to 2015 Plan. 
Noted - changes have been made. 
 
River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Thames River Basin District (20016) 
monitoring reports, guidance documents and commissioned advice is deliberately not included in Appendix A; thought these types of documents have been used to inform the scoping of key issues. Noted - no change. 
The baseline data information cut-off date is 
September 2016. Future reviews of the plans, programmes and policies are not included in the Scoping Report after this date. Noted - no change. 

## Appendix C. Baseline Data Across All Iia Topics And Analysis Of Trends Extracted From Iia Scoping Report (November 2016)

| IIA Topics                    | Indicator                  |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------|
| E volution without            |                            |
| Total                         |                            |
| population                    |                            |
| N/A                           | London is bigger than ever |
| before with approximately     |                            |
| 8.7 million residents.        |                            |
|                               |                            |
| Population                    |                            |
|                               |                            |
|                               |                            |
|                               |                            |
| London population is          |                            |
| projected to increase         |                            |
| over 10 million               |                            |
| inhabitants by 2036.          |                            |
| population                    |                            |
| change                        |                            |
| By 2041 the number            |                            |
| of Londoners over 70          |                            |
| will have increased           |                            |
| by 85%                        |                            |
| 2                             |                            |
| .  By 2041,                   |                            |
| London's population           |                            |
| is expected to reach          |                            |
| 10.5 million.                 |                            |
| Population is not distributed |                            |
| evenly across the region      |                            |
| with more densely             |                            |
| populated areas in inner      |                            |
| London. The most densely      |                            |
| populated boroughs are        |                            |
| Islington, Kensington &       |                            |
| Chelsea and Hackney           |                            |
| 1                             |                            |
| .                             |                            |
| London has a younger age      |                            |
| structure than the rest of    |                            |
| the UK.                       |                            |
| 11% of London's population    |                            |
| was over the age of 65 in     |                            |
| 2015. Since 2001, London's    |                            |
| population has increased      |                            |
| by more than 1.3 million      |                            |
| people.                       |                            |
|                               |                            |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Managing growth in a sustainable way.  
Significant issue for MTS 
A 30% increase in demand on public transport by 2041. 
Providing enhanced capacity on the transport system to accommodate for rapidly growing population. 
Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers. 
Environment - 
resources and natural capital 
Equality groups 
- the most 
deprived Economy - 
supporting London's 
competitiveness  
Increased pressure on capacity of public transport and highway networks to meet forecast demand. 
| IIA Topics                   | Indicator          |
|------------------------------|--------------------|
| E volution without           |                    |
|                              | Composite physical |
| accessibility score (%):     |                    |
| Access to                    |                    |
| jobs and                     |                    |
| services                     |                    |
| 2012 - 44                    |                    |
| Improvements made            |                    |
| but significant              |                    |
| barriers remain for          |                    |
| many groups.                 |                    |
|                              |                    |
| 2013 - 46                    |                    |
|                              |                    |
| 2014 - 50                    |                    |
|                              |                    |
| 2015 - 54                    |                    |
| Travel by                    |                    |
| people                       |                    |
| with a                       |                    |
| disability                   |                    |
| 2016 - 59                    |                    |
|                              |                    |
| composite                    |                    |
| physical                     |                    |
| accessibili                  |                    |
| ty score                     |                    |
| (%)                          |                    |
|                              |                    |
| Accessibilit                 |                    |
| y                            |                    |
|                              |                    |
| Refers to:                   |                    |
|                              |                    |
| Ability of all               |                    |
| people to                    |                    |
| access the                   |                    |
| transport                    |                    |
| system and                   |                    |
| its                          |                    |
| infrastructure               |                    |
| , including                  |                    |
| those with                   |                    |
| physical,                    |                    |
| sensory or                   |                    |
| cognitive                    |                    |
| impairments                  |                    |
|                              |                    |
|                              |                    |
| Average trip rate for        |                    |
| disabled Londoners is 1.6    |                    |
| trips per person per day,    |                    |
| compared to 2.4 for those    |                    |
| without a disability.        |                    |
| 3                            |                    |
|                              |                    |
| However, disabled people     |                    |
| make fewer work and          |                    |
| education trips than the     |                    |
| average London resident.     |                    |
| Average trip rate for        |                    |
| disabled Londoners is 34     |                    |
| per cent lower than for non- |                    |
| disabled people.             |                    |
| Customer                     |                    |
| satisfactio                  |                    |
| n/percepti                   |                    |
| on of                        |                    |
| journey                      |                    |
| experienc                    |                    |
| e                            |                    |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Accessibility to public transport stations may not improve. 
Equality groups 
- people on low incomes, older people and disabled people  
Not all public transport stations and stops are accessible, for those who are mobility impaired or travelling with 
heavy luggage or a buggy.  
Health - 
community cohesion  
Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the 
biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers. 
Health - levels of 
active travel / 
physical activity  
Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience nonphysical barriers to use of the transport network. 

 Significant issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the equality, health and economic perspectives. 

Economy - 
access to employment opportunities  
Safety - levels of 
actual and perceived crime 
| IIA Topics                   | Indicator    | Targets              |
|------------------------------|--------------|----------------------|
| E volution without           |              |                      |
|                              |              |                      |
|                              |              |                      |
|                              |              |                      |
|                              |              |                      |
|                              |              | Older Londoners make |
| fewer trips, especially      |              |                      |
| Londoners over 70 years of   |              |                      |
| age, and tend to walk or     |              |                      |
| catch the bus more than      |              |                      |
| average. But 45 per cent of  |              |                      |
| older people also drive a    |              |                      |
| car at least once a week.    |              |                      |
| Overall customer             |              |                      |
| satisfaction with the TLRN   |              |                      |
| is measured on a quarterly   |              |                      |
| basis and expressed in       |              |                      |
| terms of a score out of 100. |              |                      |
| Recent scores have           |              |                      |
| typically been around 70.    |              |                      |
| Customer satisfaction        |              |                      |
| 2015/2016 (%)                |              |                      |
| 4                            |              |                      |
|                              |              |                      |
| Buses 86                     |              |                      |
| Underground 89               |              |                      |
| Overground 84                |              |                      |
| Tram 90.                     |              |                      |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
| IIA Topics                  |
|-----------------------------|
| E volution without          |
|                             |
|                             |
| Connectivity                |
|                             |
|                             |
| People's                    |
| access to                   |
| jobs                        |
| Refers to:                  |
| Central London has greater  |
| accessibility to public     |
| transport than those living |
| in outer London.            |
|                             |
| Public                      |
| transport                   |
| reliability                 |
|                             |
| Improvements to the         |
| transport networks          |
| continue to be              |
| reflected in                |
| incremental                 |
| improvements to key         |
| indicators of               |
| transport connectivity      |
| and physical                |
| accessibility.              |
|                             |
| Public                      |
| transport                   |
| capacity                    |
|                             |
|                             |
|                             |
| East London has fewer       |
| connections across the      |
| River Thames. The cross-    |
| river bus network in east   |
| London is poor. Average     |
| number of jobs available    |
| within 45 minutes travel    |
| time by public transport    |
| increased from 937,900 in   |
| 2006 to 1,009,100 in 2015,  |
| representing a steady       |
| increase of 7.6%.           |
|                             |
|                             |
| London's workday            |
| population grows by half a  |
| million.                    |
| However, inequality         |
| of transport                |
| connectivity is             |
| apparent between            |
| different parts of          |
| London                      |

One's ability to reach employment, education, shops, recreation, friends, family and health and social services measured by whether  the infrastructure is in place and whether it is able to accommodat e demand 
 
An average of 26.7 million trips per day were made in London in 2015 - an 18 per cent increase from 2000 and 0.2 per cent higher than 2014. 

By 2041, it is expected that trips per days will have grown to 32.2 million trips per day.  
Public transport accounted for 28 per cent of trips in 
2000, and 37 per cent in 
2015. 

Private transport accounted for 47 per cent of all trips in 
2000, but just 36 per cent in 2015. 

Underground carried a total P res ent condition/ 
L evel of 

the MTS  review 
s ignificance 

for MTS  

Improving transport accessibility levels for those living in outer London.  
Large portions of southeast London will have fewer jobs accessible by car in 2031 (increasing delays at the Blackwall Tunnel). 
 
Increased pressure on capacity of public transport and 
highway networks to meet forecast demand.  
 
Poor cross-London 
connectivity, particularly in east London.  

Unfavourable Significant issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the equality, health and economic perspectives. 

Poor access to employment in London for those who live outside its boundaries. 

Equality groups 
- people on low incomes, older people and disabled people, people living in outer London Health - 
community cohesion Health - levels of active travel / 
physical activity  
 
Economy - 
access to employment opportunities Economy - 
attractiveness for businesses to operate in east London 

| IIA Topics                    |
|-------------------------------|
| E volution without            |
| of 1.35 billion journeys - 39 |
| per cent higher than          |
| 2000/01 and a 3.3 per cent    |
| growth over the most          |
| recent year.                  |
| Demand for travel in          |
| London will increase          |
| by around 7 million           |
| trips on an average           |
| day, from 25.3 million        |
| in 2011 to 32.2               |
| million in 2041.              |
|                               |
| Bus demand in 2015/16         |
| stood at 71 per cent higher   |
| than in 2000/01, at 2.3       |
| billion journeys over the     |
| year.                         |
|                               |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
| IIA Topics                   | Indicator    |
|------------------------------|--------------|
| E volution without           |              |
|                              |              |
| NO                           |              |
| 2                            |              |
| ,                            |              |
| PM2.5                        |              |
|                              |              |
| Air quality                  |              |
|                              |              |
| Refers to:                   |              |
| PM10                         |              |
| In 2014, 39 out of 67 sites  |              |
| measured did not achieve     |              |
| the annual mean objective    |              |
| for NO                       |              |
| 2                            |              |
| .                            |              |
| 6                            |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
| EU target                    |              |
| value of                     |              |
| 25µgm-3                      |              |
| for PM                       |              |
| 2.5                          |              |
| (WHO                         |              |
| guide-line                   |              |
| value of                     |              |
| 10µgm-3)                     |              |
| 8 sites recorded an annual   |              |
| mean of twice the legal      |              |
| limit or above. 14 sites     |              |
| exceeded the hourly mean     |              |
| objective for NO             |              |
| 2                            |              |
| .                            |              |
| 7                            |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
| 5                            |              |
|                              |              |
| Annual                       |              |
| mean                         |              |
| objective                    |              |
| less than                    |              |
| 40µgm-3                      |              |
| for PM                       |              |
| 10                           |              |
| All 47 sites measured met    |              |
| the annual mean air quality  |              |
| objective of 40µgm-3 for     |              |
| PM                           |              |
| 10                           |              |
| . 1 site did not meet        |              |
| the daily mean objective for |              |
| PM                           |              |
| 10                           |              |
| .                            |              |
| 8                            |              |
|                              |              |
| Annual                       |              |
| mean                         |              |
| objective                    |              |
| less than                    |              |
| 40µgm-3                      |              |
| for NO                       |              |
| 2                            |              |
|                              |              |

Condition of the air with respect to the presence of pollutants (including NOx and PM) 

3.8 million people work in parts of London which are 
above legal limits for NO2 
pollution.9  

 

Pollutants cause around 
9,400 equivalent deaths every year in London due to poor air quality. 
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Targets for PM2.5 will not be met by 2020.  
Complying with EU legal annual limit 
values for NO2. 
Complying with EU legal annual limit values for PM10. Achieving the WHO 
guideline value for PM2.5. 
London will be in breach of legal limits on nitrogen dioxide and likely to 
remain so until at leat 2030. London may attract fines under the EU laws and continue damaging the health of 
Londoners. 
Unfavourable Critical issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue 
which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the environment al, health, economic and equality perspectives. 
Pollutants cause around 9,400 equivalent deaths and 3,150 hospital admissions every year in London & impose an economic cost of between £1.4bn and £3.7bn. 
 
Environment - 
air quality 
Environment - 
biodiversity, cultural heritage assets  
 
Equality groups 
- the most deprived, younger people, older people 
Health - 
cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and some cancers 
Economy - cost 
on the public health system  

 By 2025, existing policies and natural churn of the fleet will deliver 40% reduction. This means that there is a delivery gap of further 20% reduction in emissions.10 
86 of the 100 secondary schools exposed to the highest NO2 levels in 2013 were above the annual mean limit of 40µgm-3 for PM10.11 

| IIA Topics                 |
|----------------------------|
| E volution without         |
|                            |
| Large loss of SINCs        |
| during 2013/14             |
|                            |
|                            |
| Natural                    |
| Capital and                |
| Natural                    |
| Environmen                 |
| t                          |
|                            |
| Includes:                  |
| Proportion                 |
| of green                   |
| space                      |
| over time                  |
| and new                    |
| housing                    |
| developm                   |
| ents being                 |
| built on                   |
| Greenfield                 |
| sites                      |
| London                     |
| has                        |
| targets to                 |
| meet in                    |
| terms of                   |
| enhancing                  |
| and                        |
| increasing                 |
| each                       |
| habitat by                 |
| 2020                       |
| 12                         |
|                            |
| All living                 |
| things and                 |
| the places                 |
| where they                 |
| live                       |
| Planting                   |
| for trees                  |
| when cut                   |
| down or                    |
| fall down                  |
| to natural                 |
| causes                     |
| Habitats -                 |
| the natural                |
| home of an                 |
| animal, plant              |
| or other                   |
| organism                   |
| In 2015 SINCs covered      |
| 19.24% or 30,806ha of      |
| Greater London.            |
|                            |
| Roughly 47% of London is   |
| green (2015)               |
| 33% of London is           |
| vegetated greenspace       |
| (2015).                    |
|                            |
| 2.5% of Greater London's   |
| area is blue space (2015). |
| 24% of London is private,  |
| domestic garden land       |
| (2015).                    |
|                            |
| Over 22,5000ha of          |
| woodland and orchard       |
| habitat were recorded in   |
| 2015.                      |
| Area of                    |
| SINCs                      |
|                            |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Habitat targets might not be met by 2020. 
Trend expected to continue as result of increased demand for 
development and intensification. 
Areas of deficiency in access to nature. 
 
Environment - 
biodiversity values 
Environment - 
habitats and species   
 
Health - levels of 
physical activity 
Health - London 
heat island effect 

 Unfavourable This issue potentially can be very significant for MTS as continuing trend for loss of SINCs alongside increasing demand for transport infrastructure development will put a major pressure on the environment. 

Protecting and improving the functionality and connectivity of green spaces, and avoid the erosion of valued natural places as a result of increased pressure for transport infrastructure. Protecting and enhancing priority habitats in accordance with the London Biodiversity Action Plan habitat targets. Potential loss of biodiversity as a result of increased pressure for transport infrastructure development to accommodate higher levels of traffic.  

| IIA Topics                 |
|----------------------------|
| E volution without         |
| Proportio                  |
| n of CO                    |
| 2                          |
| emissions                  |
| from                       |
| transport                  |
| Between 2005 and 2013,     |
| total CO                   |
| 2                          |
| emissions in               |
| London fell by 13.4 per    |
| cent; with 12.1 per cent   |
| falling coming from        |
| transport.                 |
|                            |
| Road transport made up     |
| approximately 16% of total |
| CO                         |
| 2                          |
| emissions in Greater       |
| London (2013) compared     |
| to 15% in 2010.            |
| 13                         |
|                            |
| Total                      |
| road                       |
| transport                  |
| emissions                  |
| , million                  |
| tonnes                     |
| Between 2005 and           |
| 2013, total energy         |
| consumption in             |
| London fell by 11.2        |
| per cent, with             |
| transport sector           |
| decrease in                |
| consumption by             |
| 6.5%.                      |
|                            |
| Little progress has        |
| been achieved              |
| towards 60 per cent        |
| reduction by 2025          |
| target.                    |
| The transport sector       |
| accounts for 40% of the    |
| UK's energy                |
| consumption.               |
| 14                         |
|                            |
|                            |

 Climate change adaptation, mitigation and energy Includes: 
CO2 
emissions from transport Transport infrastructure adaptation Energy supply demand by the transport sector Use of renewable energy sources in the transport sector Reducing CO2 
emission s from groundbased transport, contributi ng to a Londonwide 60 per cent reduction by 2025 (compare d to 1990 levels), to support this a reduction of 48% was identified for London's transport CO2 
emission s 

P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Environment - 
threat of global climate change   
 
On current projections the Mayor's 2025 target 
to reduce CO2 
emissions will not be met. 
Health - heat and 
cold related deaths 
 
The expected gap 
is likely to be equivalent to the emissions from 45% of London's 
traffic.15 
Health - use of 
fossil fuels by transport sector and associated harmful air emissions on health 
 
Unfavourable Critical issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue 
affecting a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the environment al, health, economic and equality 
perspectives. 
Economy - 
growing contribution to energy supply demand gap 
 
London has a high concentration of vulnerable groups, which are likely to be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. 

Meeting the Mayor's target to reduce London's CO2 emissions by 
60% of 1990 levels by 2025. Increases in extreme weather events due to climate change, including storms, flash surface water floods and increase fluvial flows and sea level rise and drought, will damage the resilience for the transport network and increase the cost and complexity of maintaining operational performance standards. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels.  
Equality groups 
- older people, younger people, BAME Londoners, LGBT, women and disabled people  
The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities. 

| IIA Topics                  |
|-----------------------------|
| E volution without          |
| In 2015, 2,092 people were  |
| killed or seriously injured |
| (KSIs) on London's streets, |
| 42% below the 2015/09       |
| base line.                  |
| 17                          |
|                             |
|                             |
| Crime,                      |
| Safety and                  |
| Security                    |
|                             |
| Includes:                   |
| Rate of crime               |
| declined between            |
| 2005/6 and 2014/5,          |
| when it reached a           |
| record low of 7.0           |
| crimes per mission          |
| passenger journeys.         |
| Crime                       |
| levels and                  |
| surveys                     |
| on                          |
| communiti                   |
| es feeling                  |
| towards                     |
| safety                      |
| .                           |
| Perceived                   |
| crime (fear of              |
| crime)                      |
| In 2012/13 violence against |
| the person offences on      |
| London's trains were 2,173  |
| and in 2014/15 were 2,556.  |
| A 40 per                    |
| cent                        |
| reduction                   |
| in the                      |
| number of                   |
| people                      |
| killed or                   |
| seriously                   |
| injured by                  |
| 2020                        |
| 16                          |
| .                           |
|                             |
| Actual crime                |
| Anti-social                 |
| behaviour                   |
| (ASB)                       |
|                             |
| Rate of sexual              |
| offences has                |
| increased.                  |
| 1 in 5 Londoners state that |
| concern over crime/ASB      |
| affects their frequency of  |
| use of public transport 'a  |
| lot'.                       |
| 18                          |
|                             |
| Road safety                 |
|                             |
|                             |
| Road                        |
| Safety                      |
| and                         |
| number of                   |
| accidents                   |
| on the                      |
| road                        |
|                             |
| Volume of                   |
| road                        |
| traffic                     |
| casualties                  |
| The rate of crime was 7.4   |
| crimes per million          |
| passenger journeys on       |
| TfL's transport system in   |
| 2015/6.                     |
| 19                          |
|                             |
| Crime                       |
| rates on                    |
| public                      |
| transport                   |
| In 2012/13 sexual offences  |
| on buses were 483 and in    |
| 2014/15 they were 684. In   |
| 2012/13 violence against    |
| the person offences on      |
| buses were 4,994 and in     |
| 2014/15 were 5,801.         |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Reducing the number of violent assaults and sexual offences on the transport network.  
A negative trend of violent assaults and anti-social 
behaviour on the transport network are likely to rise.  
Reducing ASB on the transport 
network. Maintaining yearon-year falls in crime on the public transport network.  
However, overall 
crime figure will likely to continue to fall if current aspirations with respect of community can be met. 
Favourable However, a significant issue for MTS in respect of sexual 
offences on buses and the person offences on public transport. 
 
Equality groups 
- older people, younger people, BAME Londoners, LGBT, women and disabled people  
 
Health - active 
travel / levels of physical activity 
Economy - 
London's global reputation  
 
Safety - levels of 
actual and perceived crime 
Safety concerns are a barrier to active travel and contribute to inactivity which, in turn, has impacts on health and wellbeing. 
| IIA Topics                    | Indicator                   |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| E volution without            |                             |
| The % of                      |                             |
| Conservation Areas            |                             |
| at risk has remained          |                             |
| stable for the past           |                             |
| few years.                    |                             |
|                               |                             |
| Historic                      |                             |
| Environmen                    |                             |
| t                             |                             |
|                               |                             |
| Includes:                     |                             |
| % of listed buildings         |                             |
| at risk has slightly          |                             |
| increased over past           |                             |
| few years.                    |                             |
| Change in                     |                             |
| number of                     |                             |
| visitors in                   |                             |
| Heritage                      |                             |
| sites                         |                             |
| along with                    |                             |
| the                           |                             |
| number of                     |                             |
| heritage                      |                             |
| sites open                    |                             |
| for the                       |                             |
| public.                       |                             |
| Designated                    |                             |
| assets (i.e.                  |                             |
| archaeologic                  |                             |
| al remains,                   |                             |
| historic                      |                             |
| buildings,                    |                             |
| historic                      |                             |
| landscapes)                   |                             |
|                               | Designated assets currently |
| include 4 World Heritage      |                             |
| Sites, over 1,000             |                             |
| conservation areas, almost    |                             |
| 19,000 listed buildings, over |                             |
| 150 registered parks and      |                             |
| gardens, more than 150        |                             |
| scheduled monuments and       |                             |
| 1 battlefield (Barnet). Those |                             |
| designated assets at risk     |                             |
| include 72 conservation       |                             |
| areas, 493 listed buildings,  |                             |
| 37 scheduled monuments        |                             |
| and 14 registered parks       |                             |
| and gardens.                  |                             |
| % of Scheduled                |                             |
| Ancient Monuments             |                             |
| at risk has slightly          |                             |
| decreased over past           |                             |
| few years.                    |                             |
| % of Registered               |                             |
| Parks and Gardens             |                             |
| at risk has remained          |                             |
| fairly stable in recent       |                             |
| years.                        |                             |
|                               |                             |
|                               |                             |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Favourable 
Heritage assets are likely to continue to be preserved through legislation. 
Reducing the amount of designated assets that are at risk.  
However, some designated assets may still be at risk 
from neglect, decay or inappropriate development. 
Preventing loss or damage of designated assets. 
Some designated assets are still at risk from neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Major infrastructure improvements, i.e. Crossrail 2, may have heritage implications, including demolition of old buildings of historic value. 
Environment - 
designated assets 
Economy - 
London's reputation as a city rich in heritage  
 
Economy - 
levels of tourism (from cultural perspective) All forms of infrastructure improvements, including major, can have an impact both positive and potentially negative on the significance of all types of heritage assets. 
Improving capacity of London Underground may result in refurbishments to underground stations contributing to London's heritage 
value. 
| IIA Topics                  | Indicator               |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------|
| E volution without          |                         |
| Total                       |                         |
| employm                     |                         |
| ent                         |                         |
|                             | Workplace population of |
| 5.52m (2014) projected to   |                         |
| grow to 5.8m by 2021, and   |                         |
| 6.4m by 2036.               |                         |
| Employment                  |                         |
|                             |                         |
| Refers to:                  |                         |
|                             |                         |
| The                         |                         |
| operation of                |                         |
| London's                    |                         |
| labour                      |                         |
| market                      |                         |
| Geograph                    |                         |
| ical                        |                         |
| distributio                 |                         |
| n of                        |                         |
| employm                     |                         |
| ent                         |                         |
| Sectoral profile of         |                         |
| employment is changing.     |                         |
| Higher density employment   |                         |
| uses (services) are growing |                         |
| at expense of lower density |                         |
| (manufacturing).            |                         |
|                             |                         |
| London's employment has     |                         |
| grown from 4.6 million jobs |                         |
| in 2000 to 5.6 million in   |                         |
| 2015 and is projected to    |                         |
| grow to 6.3m in 2031, and   |                         |
| 6.8 million jobs by 2041.   |                         |
|                             |                         |
| Growth in                   |                         |
| employment                  |                         |
| expected to be              |                         |
| concentrated in CAZ         |                         |
| and central London.         |                         |
| Professional services       |                         |
| expected to grow by         |                         |
| 80% by 2041; with           |                         |
| an 80% decline in           |                         |
| manufacturing over          |                         |
| the same period.            |                         |
| Projecting forward to       |                         |
| 2041, the largest           |                         |
| growth in                   |                         |
| employment is               |                         |
| expected in central         |                         |
| and inner London            |                         |
| where 1.4 million           |                         |
| jobs are expected in        |                         |
| the City of London          |                         |
| and Westminster             |                         |
| alone, with a further       |                         |
| 1.4 million spread          |                         |
| across the remainder        |                         |
| of the central sub-         |                         |
| region                      |                         |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Economic Competitiveness 
Significant issue for MTS 
Capacity constraints could jeopardise employment growth in CAZ / Central London and Canary Wharf.  
Demand in employment growth in central London will be dependent on the capacity on rail routes and multi-modal connectivity 
towards central London. Productivity decline/stagnation. 
| IIA Topics                  | Indicator                |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
| E volution without          |                          |
|                             | Fewer connections across |
| the river in east London.   |                          |
| Levels of economic activity |                          |
| are lower and               |                          |
| unemployment rates higher   |                          |
| in east London.             |                          |

 Economic competitiveness From an MTS perspective, measured based on: 

|                             |
|-----------------------------|
| benefits may be             |
| tempered by so-             |
| called congestion           |
| costs that are the          |
| consequences of a           |
| mass of businesses          |
| and people                  |
| competing over              |
| scare resources.            |
| DfT data shows that vehicle |
| KM in London in 2015 were   |
| 9.9% lower than in 2000.    |
| 2009-2015:                  |
| 19.8% growth in             |
| underground journey         |
| stages.                     |
| 6.2% growth in bus          |
| passenger stages.           |
| DLR increase of 67.1% in    |
| journey stages.             |
| Vehicle KMs                 |
| increased in 2014           |
| having been in              |
| decline since 2000          |
| but were down               |
| 0.3% year on year           |
| in 2015. Despite a          |
| falling car mode            |
| share, cars KMs             |
| are forecast to rise        |
| by around 8% in             |
| 2041. Van Kms are           |
| forecast to rise by         |
| 26%.                        |
| People's                    |
| access to                   |
| jobs                        |
|                             |
| Perceptio                   |
| n of                        |
| journey                     |
| experienc                   |
| e                           |
|                             |
| Public                      |
| transport                   |
| crowding                    |
|                             |
| Asset                       |
| condition                   |
|                             |
| Public                      |
| transport                   |
| reliability                 |
| and                         |
| capacity                    |
|                             |
| Road congestion has         |
| increased on average from   |
| 2006 to 2015.               |

Public transport experience including speed or utility of accessible services , crowding, the ability to board services and ease of interchange   

Forecasts show an 87 per cent rail passenger kilometre increase coupled with a 65 per cent increase in Underground passenger kilometres from 2011 to 2041. 
In east London, high demand and lack of resilience at the current river crossings lead to very slow and unreliable journeys, constraining 
economic growth. 
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Pressure on public transport system will continue. Improving congestion and overcrowding on public transport. Reducing road traffic congestion. Poor service quality means that south and south east London suffers from poor access to jobs, hampering growth. 

Unfavourable Significant issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the equality, health, safety and economic perspectives. 

 
Economy - 
journey experience and attractiveness for businesses to operate in London 
Economy - 
London's global reputation 
Environment - 
resources and natural capital 
Safety - levels of 
actual and perceived crime 
Safety - levels of 
KSI 
Equality groups 
- people on low incomes, older people and disabled people, people living in outer London 
| IIA Topics                  | Indicator                |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
| E volution without          |                          |
| Assets at                   |                          |
| flood risk                  |                          |
|                             | 100's of kms of road and |
| rail are at risk of surface |                          |
| water flooding in London.   |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Flood risk                  |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Includes:                   |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Tidal flooding              |                          |
| River                       |                          |
| flooding                    |                          |
| Cost of                     |                          |
| damage                      |                          |
| due to                      |                          |
| flood risk                  |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Surface                     |                          |
| flooding                    |                          |
| There are 85 sites (57 no.  |                          |
| Stations, 16 no. Shafts and |                          |
| 10 no. Tunnel Portals and 2 |                          |
| no. others) on the London   |                          |
| Underground which are at    |                          |
| high and rising risk of     |                          |
| flooding.                   |                          |
| 20                          |                          |
|                             |                          |
| Flooding will continue      |                          |
| to be a risk for            |                          |
| London. The rising          |                          |
| sea level will steadily     |                          |
| reduce the level of         |                          |
| protection that             |                          |
| defences offer and          |                          |
| increased heavy             |                          |
| rainfalls will increase     |                          |
| surface water               |                          |
| flooding and flooding       |                          |
| from drains.                |                          |
| Groundwater                 |                          |
| flooding                    |                          |
|                             |                          |
| The total annualised        |                          |
| flooding risk has been      |                          |
| established as              |                          |
| approximately £6.7M, with   |                          |
| the most significant risks  |                          |
| being from flooding         |                          |
| associated with water       |                          |
| mains bursts (65% overall)  |                          |
| and pluvial /surface water  |                          |
| events (32% overall).       |                          |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Unfavourable Significant issue/critical issue for MTS Increasing 
probability of flooding will potentially make this issue to be critical for MTS. 
 
Environment - 
flood risk 
Environment - 
threat of global climate change 
Economy - 
journey experience and attractiveness for businesses to operate in London 
Economy - 
London's global reputation 
Without additional measures to adapt to potential impacts of climate change the resilience of the transport system may not be 
sufficient to accommodate the risks of flooding. It is estimated that climate change could increase fluvial and coastal risk by a factor of eight to 12 times. By the 2080s, winters will be 30% wetter, heavy winter rainfall could occur twice as frequently and the number of storms crossing the UK each winter could increase from five 
to eight21. Adapting transport infrastructure to be flood resilient. Increasing probability of 
flooding that could significantly affect transport in London. TfL's highway drainage systems are not designed to cater for the high volumes of rainfall. London network of underground tunnels is vulnerable to flooding. Effects of climate change the growing need for adaptation. 
| IIA Topics                   |
|------------------------------|
| E volution without           |
|                              |
| Geology                      |
| and soils                    |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
| Soils in London have high    |
| levels of contamination      |
| from substances such as      |
| lead.                        |
| Proportion                   |
| s of Soil                    |
| type                         |
| throughou                    |
| t London                     |
| Soil                         |
| resources                    |
| Contaminate                  |
| d soil                       |
| Changes                      |
| in                           |
| Geologica                    |
| l features                   |
| over time                    |
| Geological                   |
| features                     |
| Designated                   |
| geological                   |
| sites                        |
|                              |
| Atmospheric                  |
| deposition of                |
| pollutants to soil has       |
| reduced over time.           |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
| Soils in London have         |
| high levels of               |
| contamination from           |
| substances such as           |
| lead.                        |
|                              |
|                              |
| Much of the land within      |
| London is classed as urban   |
| or non-agricultural use.     |
| Approximately 14,000ha of    |
| land is dedicated to         |
| agriculture with the Lea     |
| Valley containing the        |
| largest area of horticulture |
| and allotments, covering     |
| approximately 830ha.         |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
s ignificance 
for MTS Unfavourable 
 
Soils remain at risk of acidification and eutrophication caused by atmospheric deposition. 
 
Increased pressure on soils resulting from competing demands and pressures, pressure good agricultural land outside of 
London.  
Some soils in London have high levels of contamination from heavy metals, lead, solvents and other hazardous hydrocarbons. 
However, in the context of MTS, the soil contaminatio n will be 
dealt through the planning system, while atmospheric deposition is affected by air pollution and will be addressed through air quality topic in the MTS. 
 
Environment - 
the loss of soil organic matter reduces soil quality, affecting the supply of nutrients and 
making it more difficult for plants to grow, and increases emissions to the atmosphere 
Human health - 
impacts of contaminated land on human health 
| IIA Topics                  |
|-----------------------------|
| E volution without          |
| Completion rates are        |
| well below the target.      |
|                             |
| Housing                     |
| Supply,                     |
| Quality,                    |
| Choice and                  |
| Affordability               |
| Number                      |
| of vacant                   |
| compared                    |
| to                          |
| occupied                    |
| housing                     |
| 49,000                      |
| homes                       |
| per                         |
| annum                       |
| (London                     |
| Plan)                       |
| Proportion of               |
| affordable homes            |
| decreased and fell to       |
| 28% in 2015.                |
| Refers to:                  |
|                             |
| Provision of                |
| housing                     |
|                             |
|                             |
| Number                      |
| of houses                   |
| built per                   |
| year                        |
| Housing                     |
| price                       |
| inflations                  |
|                             |
| Net completion of           |
| conventional housing was    |
| at 23,986 for 2013/14,      |
| representing 80% of the     |
| annual target.              |
|                             |
| Affordable homes            |
| delivered:                  |
| 2011/2012 - 17,200          |
| 2012/2013 - 8,700           |
|                             |
| Currently, only half of the |
| homes London needs are      |
| being built.                |
| 22                          |
|                             |
|                             |
| London's Growth Areas       |
| have the potential to       |
| provide 570,000 new jobs    |
| and at least 300,000 new    |
| homes.                      |
|                             |
| Around 49,000 new homes     |
| will be required every year |
| in London over the next two |
| decades, due to rapid       |
| population growth and an    |
| existing backlog of need.   |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
London is experiencing significant population and employment growth. Housing targets will 
be continued to be consistently below the London Plan target. Affordable homes delivery will continue to decline.  
 
Health - levels of 
physical activity 
Economy - 
number of jobs 
Equality - 
affordability of housing 
Environment - 
impact on natural environment and air quality (domestic 
emissions).      
Unfavourable Significant issue for MTS MTS has a direct and 
indirect role in the provision of housing; an issue which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the equality, health, safety and economic perspectives. 

Growth in passenger numbers and the expansion of the railway makes development even more challenging. Need to deliver major station improvements and new infrastructure to unlock land. Significant upfront investment in infrastructure, including transport, to unlock large sites for development. Housing to be close to public transport networks - the density of development is constrained through planning guidance. 

Not sufficient supply of affordable housing to maintain London's competitiveness. 

| IIA Topics                   | Indicator                    |
|------------------------------|------------------------------|
| E volution without           |                              |
| Land use                     |                              |
| area %                       |                              |
|                              |                              |
| Design                       |                              |
|                              |                              |
| Refers to:                   |                              |
|                              | Londoner's satisfaction with |
| streets, pavements and       |                              |
| public spaces has generally  |                              |
| remained reasonable over     |                              |
| the years.                   |                              |
| Topography,                  |                              |
| watercourses                 |                              |
| , land use                   |                              |
| and pattern,                 |                              |
| vegetation,                  |                              |
| public open                  |                              |
| space and                    |                              |
| cultural                     |                              |
| heritage                     |                              |
| features                     |                              |
| 72 per cent of Londoners     |                              |
| say that they would walk     |                              |
| more if there was improved   |                              |
| safety and security, for     |                              |
| example better street        |                              |
| lighting or safer road       |                              |
| crossings, and 66 per cent   |                              |
| say that they would walk     |                              |
| more if streets were cleaner |                              |
| and more attractive.         |                              |
| In 2011 road users           |                              |
| were most satisfied          |                              |
| with the working             |                              |
| condition of traffic         |                              |
| lights, street lighting,     |                              |
| drainage, road               |                              |
| markings and                 |                              |
| signage directions.          |                              |
| They were least              |                              |
| satisfied with traffic       |                              |
| congestion, the              |                              |
| availability and             |                              |
| condition of cycle           |                              |
| lanes and the time           |                              |
| allowed to stop, pick-       |                              |
| up and drop-off in           |                              |
| loading bays for             |                              |
| commercial vehicles.         |                              |
|                              |                              |
| Pavements                    |                              |
| and roads,                   |                              |
| cleanliness                  |                              |
| of open                      |                              |
| spaces and                   |                              |
| the quality of               |                              |
| local parks                  |                              |
| Traffic                      |                              |
| speed, traffic               |                              |
| congestion,                  |                              |
| road                         |                              |
| markings,                    |                              |
| signage                      |                              |
| directions                   |                              |
| and the                      |                              |
| extent to                    |                              |
| which streets                |                              |
| are cluttered                |                              |

 

P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
Favourable 
In the absence of the MTS review, 
deficiencies in open spaces may not be properly addressed. 
Poor quality public realm in some parts of London which can discourage active travel Deficiencies in open spaces in 
some parts of the city. Risk of poor design, lack of legible neighbourhoods and sense of place. 
Environment - 
visual amenity biodiversity and air quality. 
Health - 
community cohesion  
 
Health - levels of 
physical activity 
Health - quality 
of life and wellbeing 
Economy - 
social cost from reducing/increasin g  the number of cars on the road 
Safety - levels of 
KSI 
| IIA Topics                    | Indicator                |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------|
| E volution without            |                          |
|                               |                          |
| Materials                     |                          |
| and waste                     |                          |
|                               |                          |
| Refers to:                    |                          |
|                               | In 2013, London produced |
| 4.7 million tonnes of         |                          |
| commercial and industrial     |                          |
| waste accounting for about    |                          |
| 32 percent of London's total  |                          |
| waste.                        |                          |
| Amount of waste               |                          |
| landfilled is                 |                          |
| decreasing with more          |                          |
| being incinerated in          |                          |
| energy from waste             |                          |
| facilities.                   |                          |
| Amount of                     |                          |
| hazardou                      |                          |
| s waste                       |                          |
| produced                      |                          |
| by the                        |                          |
| transport                     |                          |
| sector                        |                          |
| Of all the waste collected in |                          |
| 2014/15, 21% was              |                          |
| landfilled.                   |                          |
| Amount of                     |                          |
| waste                         |                          |
| recycled                      |                          |
| The amount of                 |                          |
| hazardous waste               |                          |
| produced by London            |                          |
| is increasing.                |                          |
| London recycled, reused or    |                          |
| composted 30% of waste.       |                          |
| With increasing               |                          |
| trends in recycling,          |                          |
| there has been a              |                          |
| decreasing trend in           |                          |
| the amount of waste           |                          |
| sent to landfill.             |                          |
| The transport, storage and    |                          |
| communication sectors         |                          |
| accounted for roughly         |                          |
| 18,107 tonnes (5%) of         |                          |
| London's hazardous waste      |                          |
| in 2011.                      |                          |
|                               |                          |

Materials, substances or objects which have no further use and are disposed of e.g. primary raw materials such as aggregates and minerals and secondary manufacture d products 

London produces 7.2 million tonnes of construction, demolition and excavation waste each year equating to 48 percent of all waste arising. 
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
s ignificance 
for MTS  
The amount of waste generated is likely to increase. The amount of hazardous waste 
produced by London is likely to 
increase. 
Environment - 
air pollution 
Environment - 
biodiversity 
Environment - 
threat of global 
climate change 
Economy - zero 
waste economy 
Economy - 
resource efficiency and innovation  
Reducing the amount of waste produced by the transport sector. Using and promoting sustainable forms 
of transporting waste. Managing large volumes of hazardous waste currently sent to landfill. Reduce amount of waste produced, increase reuse, remanufacturing and recycling in all construction and operational practices. 

Favourable MTS can play its role in applying principles of circular economy when aiming for waste reduction, reuse, remanufacturin g and recycling in all construction and operational practices. Waste management can be considered alongside transport planning. 

| IIA Topics                   | Indicator    |
|------------------------------|--------------|
| E volution without           |              |
|                              |              |
|                              |              |
| Perceptio                    |              |
| n of noise                   |              |
|                              |              |
| Main source of ambient       |              |
| noise in London is road      |              |
| traffic, followed by rail.   |              |
|                              |              |
| Noise and                    |              |
| vibration                    |              |
|                              |              |
| Refers to:                   |              |
| Unwanted                     |              |
| noise / sound                |              |
| 13% of people rate road      |              |
| transport as the greatest    |              |
| source of noise and          |              |
| consider it a 'serious       |              |
| problem'.                    |              |
| 23                           |              |
|                              |              |
| 41% of Londoners were        |              |
| disturbed by road traffic in |              |
| 2012.                        |              |
| 24                           |              |
|                              |              |
| Proportion                   |              |
| of people                    |              |
| exposed                      |              |
| to                           |              |
| roadside                     |              |
| and                          |              |
| railway                      |              |
| noise                        |              |
| above                        |              |
| threshold                    |              |
| Satisfaction with the        |              |
| level of transport           |              |
| related noise has            |              |
| shown a steady               |              |
| increase over the            |              |
| previous five years,         |              |
| however there are            |              |
| still a large number of      |              |
| people exposed to            |              |
| roadside and railway         |              |
| noise above the              |              |
| threshold in Greater         |              |
| London.                      |              |
| Aviation noise affects       |              |
| people living within         |              |
| proximity to an airport.     |              |
|                              |              |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
 
Environment - 
noise pollution 
Equality groups 
- younger people, 
those living closest to busy 
roads  
New transport infrastructure development will likely to contribute to the increasing proportion of people exposed to 
noise above the 
threshold. Parts of the population are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds the threshold. Aviation noise affects people living within proximity to an airport. 
 
Unfavourable Significant issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact 
on this issue which affects a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the environment al, equality, health and economic perspectives. 
Health - quality 
of life and wellbeing. Noise disturbance can increase levels of annoyance, anxiety, sleep disruption and can be associated with cardiovascular disease through increased blood pressure 
Health - 
community cohesion 
Economy - 
social costs  
 
 
| IIA Topics                   | Indicator              |
|------------------------------|------------------------|
| E volution without           |                        |
|                              | Change in              |
| water                        |                        |
| quality in                   |                        |
| rivers and                   |                        |
| estuaries                    |                        |
|                              |                        |
| Water                        |                        |
| resources                    |                        |
| and quality                  |                        |
|                              |                        |
| Includes:                    |                        |
| Waterbodies                  |                        |
|                              | Physical modifications |
| affect 44% of water bodies   |                        |
| in the Thames river basin    |                        |
| district. Pollution from     |                        |
| waste water affects 45% of   |                        |
| water bodies in the Thames   |                        |
| river basin district.        |                        |
| Uncertainty to               |                        |
| identify trend               |                        |
| occurring as a result        |                        |
| of transport                 |                        |
| infrastructure               |                        |
| development on the           |                        |
| water quality and            |                        |
| pollution.                   |                        |
| Quality of                   |                        |
| water within                 |                        |
| waterbodies                  |                        |
| Pollution                    |                        |
| from                         |                        |
| waste                        |                        |
| water on                     |                        |
| water                        |                        |
| bodies                       |                        |
| In 2013, pollution from      |                        |
| towns, cities and transport  |                        |
| affected 17% of water        |                        |
| bodies in the Thames river   |                        |
| basin district.              |                        |
| 25                           |                        |
|                              |                        |
| Changes to the natural flow  |                        |
| and level of water affects   |                        |
| 12% of water bodies in the   |                        |
| Thames river basin district. |                        |
|                              | Physical               |
| modificati                   |                        |
| ons to                       |                        |
| water                        |                        |
| bodies                       |                        |
| Length of surface water      |                        |
| rated as being of good       |                        |
| biological quality has seen  |                        |
| a notable reduction for the  |                        |
| period from 2013-2015.       |                        |
| 26                           |                        |
|                              |                        |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
24 Transport for London (2012) Perceptions of the travel environment. 25 http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/RiverBasinDistrict/6/Summary 
26 Environment Agency. (2009). Water for life and livelihoods. River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289937/geth0910bswa-e-e.pdf 

P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
 
Environment - 
water quality and availability   
In the longer term, water resources will be affected by drier summers and a greater potential for drought. Physical modifications to water bodies. Pollution from waste water on water bodies 
and surface water run-off. 
Increased 
economic growth is likely to cause an increase in run-off 
and potential contamination and disruption of flows for surface water and groundwater, there is also likely to be an increase in demand for water. Unfavourable Significant issue for MTS 
MTS can cause a direct impact on this issue which affects water quality and availability. Opportunity for MTS to address this issue at the policy level. 
| IIA Topics          |
|---------------------|
| E volution without  |
| Positive change has |
| been identified,    |
| although difference |
| still exists.       |
|                     |
| Life                |
| expectanc           |
| y (years)           |
| at birth of         |
| most and            |
| least               |
| deprived            |
|                     |
|                     |
| Adults              |
| need                |
| 150+                |
| minutes a           |
| week of             |
| physical            |
| activity to         |
| stay                |
| healthy.            |
|                     |
| 20% of              |
| wards, by           |
| sex                 |

 Health and Health Inequalities Refers to: 
The health of the population in terms of general health, lifestyle, life expectancies and other health determinants 

To reduce childhood obesity and increase physical activity to 
70%27. 
Obesity is a growing problem and is likely to continue. Active lifestyles and healthy eating campaigns will help reduce this trend. In 2015, 57.8% of adults 
were achieving the recommended 150+ minutes of physical activity 
a week28. London has the highest 
rate of childhood obesity in the country. Only 6 out of 10 children are a healthy weight when they start secondary school. 58% of men and 51% of women in London are either overweight or obese. 
Around one million Londoners suffer from some form of mental disorder, such as 
depression.29 
 
An estimated 72,000 Londoners are thought to suffer from dementia - a 
figure expected to increase 
2.5 fold by 2050, largely 

P res ent condition/ 

L evel of 
s ignificance 
for MTS  
In the absence of the MTS review this issue may not be properly addressed. 
 
 
Equality groups 
- younger people, 
those living closest to busy roads 
Health - quality 
of life and wellbeing 
Economy - 
social costs, costs 
to NHS 

Unfavourable Critical issue for MTS MTS has a direct impact on this issue affecting a variety of IIA topics and is pertinent from the health, economic and equality perspectives 

Inequalities in health outcomes and the overall physical and mental health and wellbeing of Londoners. 
Low levels of physical activity. Differential in life expectancy and health life expectancy across London. Differentials in health determinants of different people. Increasing health inequalities across the population. Areas with high levels of environmental noise are often 

| IIA Topics                   |
|------------------------------|
| E volution without           |
| reflecting a relative ageing |
| of London's population.      |
| 30                           |
|                              |
|                              |
| An estimated 28 per cent of  |
| Londoners do less than 30    |
| minutes of physical activity |
| per week.                    |
| 31                           |
|                              |
P res ent 
condition/ 
L evel of 
the MTS  review 
K ey is s ues  
L ikely s ignificant 
impacts  on…  
s ignificance 
for MTS  
socially deprived. 

## Appendix D. Mts Iterations Register

| S ubject                                       | IIA advice        |
|------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| MTS draft                                      |                   |
| objectives                                     |                   |
| 9 September 2016                               | 29 September 2016 |
| Objective 6:                                   |                   |
| Tackling London's                              |                   |
| air quality                                    |                   |
| challenge                                      |                   |
|                                                |                   |
| Query arose whether overall objective 6        |                   |
| and policies it encompassed address            |                   |
| inequalities of air quality challenge. Will it |                   |
| be picked up in the detailed proposals for     |                   |
| each policy? However, it would be better to    |                   |
| mainstream issues of inequality to air         |                   |
| pollution exposure in the overarching          |                   |
| objective 6.                                   |                   |
| Objective 8:                                   |                   |
| Making cycling                                 |                   |
| attractive for                                 |                   |
| everyone                                       |                   |
|                                                |                   |
| Policy:                                        |                   |
| Implement the Healthy Streets                  |                   |
| approach to make walking an attractive         |                   |
| choice for everyone                            |                   |
| was not used for                               |                   |
| Objective 8.                                   |                   |
| No mentioning of 'historic environment' in     |                   |
| this policy.                                   |                   |
| Policy:                                        |                   |
| Use                                            |                   |
| transport                                      |                   |
| infrastructure and                             |                   |
| land to enhance                                |                   |
| London's natural                               |                   |
| environment and                                |                   |
| reduce impacts on                              |                   |
| the wider natural                              |                   |
| and built                                      |                   |
| environment                                    |                   |
|                                                |                   |
| Wouldn't it be better worded: 'Ensure          |                   |
| integration of biodiversity and the network    |                   |
| of green spaces to provide a range of          |                   |
| sustainability benefits during transport       |                   |
| infrastructure planning, design and            |                   |
| operation'                                     |                   |
|                                                |                   |
| Policy:                                        |                   |
| Ensure                                         |                   |
| that TfL achieves                              |                   |
| a net                                          |                   |
| improvement in                                 |                   |
| biodiversity in the                            |                   |
| way that we                                    |                   |
| maintain our                                   |                   |
| assets and deliver                             |                   |
| new projects                                   |                   |
| This is a health and health inequality issue   |                   |
| mainly.                                        |                   |
| Policy:                                        |                   |
| Reduce                                         |                   |
| transport noise                                |                   |
| and vibration                                  |                   |
|                                                |                   |

The first five policies are a good fit under 
'Priority: Supports the economy, new 
homes and jobs' as they have economic 
consequences. 

Objective 14: 
Enhancing the natural environment and ensuring London is resilient to extreme weather and climate 

However, is it better to have a separate 
strategic objective for 'enhancing the 
natural environment' and move it under 
'Priority: Delivers Healthy Streets and 

This objective has been reworded to: 'Reduce 
transport's contribution to poor air quality and 
other direct negative impacts on health'. 
A greater emphasis has been given to the issue of health in the new version for this objective.  
No change to directly address this comment has been made. 
Additional policy: 'Protect and enhance London's built environment and heritage' has been included under MTS objective 13: Use 
transport infrastructure and land to help enhance London's built and natural environments and reduce impacts on the wider natural environment, aiming for a net 
gain in biodiversity. 
This policy has been re-worded to: 'Enhance 
London's natural environment in order to improve healthy living and wellbeing by delivering a net gain in biodiversity on all new transport schemes, maintenance programmes and through delivering new 
green infrastructure'. 

This policy was moved under Priority: 'To deliver healthy streets and pleasant places' for MTS objective 7: 'Reduce transport's contribution to poor air quality and other direct negative impacts on health'. 

A new MTS objective 13 '' Use transport infrastructure and land to help enhance London's built and natural environments and reduce impacts on the wider natural environment, aiming for a net gain in biodiversity' has been included under the Priority: 'Deliver healthy streets and pleasant places'. 

 
change 
pleasant places' to the left, middle column. It will better fit under this priority as it has 
environmental and human health dimension/consequences. In this way there 
will be an opportunity for inclusion of another policy, i.e. 'Ensure that TfL achieves net improvement in biodiversity and enhance London's natural environment to improve healthy living and wellbeing'. It is not clear if the notion of the role of natural environment for human health and wellbeing through sustainable transport infrastructure planning has been fully addressed in the current wording of policies and objectives. 
Query on how transport planning contributes to the principles of circular economy and how it was reflected in MTS objectives. 
Objective 16:  
Improving efficiency of delivery and 
servicing 
High Level 
Assessment of 
Illustrative 
9 November 2016 
2 December 2016 
Interventions 
Modelling 
Economic, Equality, Social, Environmental and Health Effects have been identified to inform the TfL policy makers on the likely impacts of each specific intervention. These have been assessed, in insolation from other proposals to evaluate their 
sustainability benefits and effects on their 
own merits.  
A high level assessment of the core reference case and six illustrative interventions to identify their likely 
sustainability outcomes. 
 
MTS Draft I High 
Level 
10 January 2017 
Assessment 
Chapter 2. Vision  

## Recommendation 1:

The strategy should deliver significant benefits for mobility impaired and other 
groups who currently experience a wide 
range of barriers to travel. This should be reflected in the vision. The Vision can include references to: 
Recommendation 2: 
1. 
UN Sustainable Cities commitments. 
2. 
A 'sustainable transport system'. 
3. 
A commitment to challenging and 
reducing crime (which then gives a logic to 
One of the policies under new objective 13 has been re-worded to emphasize the importance of London's' natural environment role in improving healthy living and wellbeing: 'Enhance London's natural environment in 
order to improve healthy living and wellbeing by delivering a net gain in biodiversity on all new transport schemes, maintenance programmes and through delivering new 
green infrastructure'. 
New policy under Priority 'Deliver healthy 
streets and pleasant places' has been added: 'Reduce Impacts on the wider natural 
environment associated with supply chains 
and waste'. TfL will be taking the results of the high level commentary on board when formulating the 
draft policies and proposals, thus ensuring that the development of the strategy is carried out in an informed way, taking into consideration different perspectives and impacts on sustainability. 
This recommendation has been incorporated, 
alongside a draft proposed target: 
"Public transport journey time / customer care and the accessibility of the public transport system should be improved. We will work towards X% of trips / stations being step-free 
by 2040."  
1. UN Sustainable Cities is not explicitly 
referenced but the intention is there 
2. Text includes:  "The goal of our transport 
strategy must be to help make London the most open, economically attractive, liveable, 

Policy 4). 4. 

Inclusion of 'travelling more safely and securely.' 

5. 
Resilience in the context of climate 
change. 
6. 
Good (green) economic growth, 
increasing diversity and equal opportunities. 

Recommendation 3: 
TfL to consider inclusion of targets for air quality and CO2 in the Vision. 
Recommendation 4: 
We suggest the wording of the Vision to be 
further enhanced as follows: 

'A sustainable transport system that 
meets the diverse needs of all 
Londoners and communities', enabling 
London to accommodate its fast 
growing population, increasing diversity 
and good (green) economic growth; 
enhance its global competitiveness and 
increase equal opportunities for all 
Londoners; improve its environment 
through enhancing London's natural 
capital and the services and benefits it 
provides; reduce waste and resource 
consumption; improve Londoner's 
health, health inequalities, quality of life 
and personal well-being; improve 
inclusion and social integration through 
an accessible and integrated city 
approach; reduce crime and improve 
travelling more safely and securely; and 

and environmentally sustainable city in the world." 3. Text includes: "We will work with our partners to challenge and reduce crime on our networks and make sure our customers feel safe as they travel about the system".   
4. As above plus reference to adopting Vision Zero for road safety. 5. Text now acknowledges transports role in 
"enhancing London's environment and resilience to climate change" and the strategy aims to "ensure that air quality and climate change are examined", with a commitment that London's public transport fleets to be zero emission by XX, for all new cars and vans sold in London to be zero emission by XX and by 2050 for the entire transport system to be net 'zero carbon'." 6. Text now acknowledges that the "transport system has a vital role to play in addressing inequality, improving social integration and increasing opportunities for all Londoners" and commits to "increase in capacity and connectivity to new parts of London to enable at least 1.2 million new jobs to be created and over a million new homes" and to improving the accessibility of the system for all users.  

The strategy now states that transport will be "zero emission" by 2050 which represents the ultimate AQ and CO2 targets. It is intended that further (interim) targets will be agreed 
before publication. 
The strategy now contains reference to all 
except: 
- 
enhancing London's natural capital 
and the services and benefits it provides;  
Decided the terminology 'natural capital' is 
jargon. Instead the strategy describes the 
specific benefits under the relevant policies and proposals which include enhancement to 
the natural environment. 

 

supporting London in becoming a resilient and sustainable city in meeting 
its COP21 targets and contributing to implementation of the sustainable development goals. 

## Chapter 3. A Good Public Transport Experience

TfL to consider giving references to: 
Recommendation 5: 
1. 
UN Sustainable Cities Goal 11: Make 
cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. That then gives a logic to the 
inclusion of community safety without overemphasizing the crime and disorder elements of TfL's statutory commitment under the Crime and Disorder Act Section 17. 2. 
Policy 5 to give reference to 
overcrowding (and working to reduce overcrowding) as safety issue. 
3. 
Partnerships to support the delivery of 
MTS priorities - which should include London Transport Community Safety Partnership. 

## Chapter 4. Healthy Streets And Healthy People

Recommendation 6: 
When considering protection and enhancement of green spaces it needs to be done using a coherent methodology rolled out across transport, environment and health strategy. Provide a better linkages between the role of natural environment and ecosystem services it 
provides to benefit the mental, physical 
health and personal well-being of 
Londoners, acknowledging that all three London strategies have potential to facilitate people's connection with nature 
across their policies. 
Recommendation 7: 
To include accessibility and inclusion as a 
stated priority for healthy streets. The policies should deliver these outcomes. 
 
Include personal safety beyond traffic/transport incidents in Policy 9. 
Recommendation 8: Recommendation 9: 
It is recommended to include concrete short term proposals to address poor air 
quality around schools and hospitals and most vulnerable people, for example, under 
Policy 14: Reduce emissions from road 
1. Change not made. To be considered 
either in chapter introduction or 
Vision chapter when draft is developed further.  
2. Change made. Text now includes 
reference to safety and station closures for safety reasons. 
3. Change not made. For consistency, 
reference to the Police has now been removed to align with general approach of not naming specific stakeholders. 
We are proposing a net gain in biodiversity as the way that we demonstrate improvement in this area. This is in line with the national planning policy framework and is easier to monitor than trying to measure all of the individual components of ecosystem services. 
 
It is intended that policies in the MTS align 
with the other mayoral strategies. 
Reference to this will be added as a priority 
for this particular policy area. It will also be included where appropriate within specific 
policies and proposals around healthy streets delivery.  
This has been added to the policy section - a 
personal safety proposal may also be 
required but needs to be developed with TfL 
Enforcement & On-Street Operations.  
The MTS has long term strategic actions to 
address air quality generally. More detailed actions around exposure to poor air quality will be captured in the London Environment 
Strategy.  
 
transport to improve air quality, health and impacts on climate change. (86 of the 100 secondary schools London exposed to the highest NO2 levels in 2013 were above the 
annual mean limit of 40μgm, and recent 
studies have shown that people living nearby busy roads are also at higher risk to 
develop dementia.32)  
Recommendation 10: 
To include reference to enhance existing historic environment in relevant policies or proposals.  For example: 
 
'Protect and enhance London's built environment and heritage'. 
Recommendation 11: 
To include specific proposals to reduce the number of people exposed to high levels of noise from roads and railways. 
Recommendation 12: 
To address reduction in inequalities in climate change effects across London. Policies do not explicitly recognise the issue of climate change and extreme weather events in relation to London's transport system and its impacts on human health inequalities (i.e. elderly people can be disproportionally affected by heat on the underground, heat islands on the streets. Summer heatwaves may make public 
transport uncomfortable, and can affect the 
health of Londoners, particularly of 
vulnerable people. Recognition of this inequality in the document is recommended. 
Recommendation 13: 
TfL to consider inclusion of the policy 
addressing management of materials and waste. For example: 
'Reduce impacts on the wider natural 
environment associated with supply chains and waste'. 

## Chapter 5. New Homes And Jobs

Recommendation 14: 
TfL to consider including references to 
'safety and security' in design and public 
realm policies. 
This will be added into policy 12, in particular the third proposal under this area which focuses on urban realm improvements.  
TfL does not currently have ways of measuring noise levels of impacts as a result of transport so it is impossible to set a quantified level of ambition. We will add proposals which describe some of the actions we are taking to reduce road and rail noise. Now included.  
This is covered in the responsible 
procurement proposal in the new homes and jobs section. We will add more explanatory text to highlight the benefits in terms of 
reducing impacts of supply chains and waste. TfL's responsibilities and actions in this area will also be covered in the London 
Environment Strategy.  
Change made. Reference to safety and 
security in the public realm now referenced in 
policy text (policy 16). 
Recommendation 
15: 
Policies in general to include more 
targets to quantify easier economic benefits and consider inclusion of the interim targets to monitor the progress. 
Recommendation 16: 
TfL to consider inclusion of a policy addressing sustainable management of construction and demolition waste from new transport schemes, sustainable use of resources, recycling and the principles of the circular economy. 
MTS Options - 
24 March 2017 
Summary of IIA 
findings & 
 
recommendations 
Recommendation 1: 
Although some policies aim to provide necessary safeguards to ensure that transport schemes are seeking to achieve a net positive biodiversity gain, and ensure implementation of such controls, a separate policy would help to ensure these objectives are addressed at the project level. 
Recommendation 2: 
The Draft Revised MTS contains proposals for greener and more resilient streets, with less noise and vibration and improved public realm. It also seeks to 
ensure that noise and vibration from rail 
services in London will be mitigated where reasonably practicable. However, the strategy could be strengthened by 
including the explicit aim of reducing the 
number of people exposed to excessive noise levels (above WHO guidelines) 
from surface transport. 
Recommendation 3: 
To consider establishing a noise monitoring framework to measure the impacts of surface transport on the quality of life close to the major corridors. 
Change not made. We have noted that this 
will need to be considered as part of the analytical workstream. This is covered in the responsible procurement proposal in the new homes and jobs section. TfL's responsibilities and actions in this area will also be covered in the London 
Environment Strategy.  
29 March 2017 
 
Policy 12: Although policies  aspire to provide necessary safeguards to ensure that transport schemes are seeking to achieve a net positive biodiversity gain, and ensure implementation of such controls, a stronger policy is likely to be needed to ensure appropriate safeguards are passed on to the project level. Therefore the wording of the policy will be amended to reflect these safeguards to the effect of: "…..This would be 
delivered through specific commitments detailed within the relevant planning consent secured for individual schemes, i.e. DCO, 
Hybrid Built, EIA and etc." 
Text amended to: 
Proposal 56: The Mayor, through TfL and working with the boroughs, will seek to reduce the impacts of excessive noise and vibration levels from road transport in London 
where practicable by… 
Text amended to: Proposal 56 - included: Monitor noise close to major road corridors to measure the impacts of road transport. 
Recommendation 4: 
 
Text should be added in respect of Policy 12 to specifically outline the need to 
avoid adverse effects on the integrity of European sites and to outline the need for lower level HRA assessments as appropriate (i.e. at a lower tier plan or project level) 
Recommendation 5: 
Text should be added referring to the known impacts of air quality on European sites and confirming the intention of the strategy to reduce these effects.  
Recommendation 6: 
Stronger, more urgent and wider reaching action is required to improve air quality (particularly for those who are socially disadvantaged and experience 
the highest level of pollution). Consider additional measures over and above the 
current proposals of extending the ULEZ to address pollution from target private cars and light goods vehicles across the 
whole of Greater London. 
Recommendation 7: 
Stronger commitments could be made to reduce the inequalities in affordable 
housing for those who are from low income households, younger people and disabled people through the inclusion of 
targets for the development of surplus 
TfL land specifically for this purpose. 
Recommendation 8: 
 
Consider the impact of climate change on an aging population and include proposals to take into account those 
most vulnerable to extreme heat and 
flooding. 
Text amended to: 
Policy 12: The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, will seek to ensure that the development of new transport schemes and the management of existing transport infrastructure protect existing and provide new green infrastructure to deliver a net positive impact on biodiversity. This would be 
delivered through specific commitments detailed within the relevant planning consent for the scheme, including Habitat Regulation Assessments and management plans as appropriate, with special attention made to protecting designated spaces such as Sites 
of Importance for Nature Conservation. Transport schemes should maximise opportunities to protect, promote and enhance London's built heritage and sites of 
cultural importance. 
Would fit under Policy 12. However TfL decided against reference to European sites within the MTS as it was considered that under Natural England guidance carrying out an HRA is a legal requirement anyway. Policy 9/ Proposal 30 No change proposed. TfL considers ULEZ an urgent and short term commitment. The LES will also have more detail on this aspect. 
 
Text amended to: 
TfL is one of the largest owners of public land in London, and in order to facilitate delivery of much needed housing the Mayor intends to ensure that TfL surplus land is used to maximise affordable housing and so reduce the inequalities in housing provision for those who are from low income households, 
younger people and disabled people. 
Text amended to: 
Proposal 54: The Mayor, through TfL, will seek to work with transport and other infrastructure providers in London to undertake a dedicated programme of research to understand and prioritise risk of 
 
Recommendation 9: 
Include proposals and targets to address issue of congested pavements. 
 
Recommendation 10: 
 
Include stronger, more urgent action in relation to the impacts of climate change on human health through promoting measures that support resilience in the context of extreme weather events, such as flooding or heat waves. 
Recommendation 11: 
Consider inclusion in the Healthy Streets approach policies to explicitly promote the reduction of the need to travel by motorised vehicles with the consequent benefits for congestion and pollution. 
Recommendation 12: 
The MTS should encourage opportunities for enhancement the historic environment where opportunities 
exist. 
Recommendation 13: 
 
The MTS could include a policy to encourage waste minimisation and reuse for the purposes of minimising the 
associated environmental impacts. 
severe weather and climate change on London's transport network and minimise its 
impacts on the most vulnerable user groups. Text amended to: 
Improving walking and cycling environments Safe, less-congested, clutter-free, better 
maintained, well-lit and easily navigable pavements with places to stop and rest make it easier for disabled or older people or those with restricted mobility to walk across the city… 
Text amended to: 
Policy 13: The Mayor, through TfL and working with the boroughs, other transport and infrastructure providers, will seek to ensure that London's transport is more resilient to the impacts of severe weather and climate change, and ensure services can effectively respond to extreme weather events, so that it continues to operate safely, reliably and with a good level of passenger 
comfort. Text amended to: Policy 9: The Mayor, 
through TfL, and working with the boroughs, will take action to reduce emissions from the most polluting vehicles on London's roads, 
especially diesel, to improve air quality, using 
a ccombination of measures including reducing the need to travel by motorised vehicles, retrofitting, renewable fuels, road pricing, parking charges / levies, procurement, traffic restrictions / regulations and local measures. 
Additional wording added: Opportunities 
should also be explored for the enhancement and protection of London's historic 
environment where opportunities exist. Text amended to: By designing new 
infrastructure following the waste management hierarchy to use resources more efficiently and promote the circular economy there are significant opportunities to decrease consumption of natural resources and minimise and re-use waste in order to reduce impacts on the natural environment. This should include the sustainable management of construction and demolition 
waste from new transport schemes. 

## Appendix E. Consultation Draft Mts 3 Options Iia Assessment

| Scale of effect       | Definition                                                                                                                                                |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| + +                   |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Major positive effect | Revised MTS contributes greatly towards achieving the IIA objective                                                                                       |
| +                     |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Minor positive effect | Revised MTS contributes to achieving the IIA objective                                                                                                    |
| 0                     |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Neutral or no effect  | Revised MTS does not impact upon the achievement of the IIA objective                                                                                     |
| -                     |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Minor negative effect | Revised MTS conflicts with the IIA objective                                                                                                              |
| - -                   |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Major negative effect | Revised MTS greatly hinders or prevents the achievement of the IIA objective                                                                              |
| ?                     |                                                                                                                                                           |
| Uncertain             | Revised MTS can have positive or negative effects but the level of information available at a time of assessment does not allow to make a clear judgement |
- Reduce the number of 
people exposed to levels of 
NO2 concentrations that 
exceed 40µg/m3? 
Air quality 1. To reduce 
emissions and concentrations 
of harmful 
atmospheric pollutants, particularly in 
areas of poorest 
air quality and reduce exposure 

- Reduce inequalities in 
access to clean air across London, particularly for  
those: 
- 
who live in deprived 
areas? 
- 
who live, learn or work near busy roads?   
- 
who are more vulnerable because of 
their age or existing 
medical condition?   
Poor air quality is a major problem for London with high levels of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road transport.  
Option 1 includes proposals for improvements in walking and cycling which can lead to growth in cycling to 6% 
mode share in 2041. Option 1 also delivers a 30% car mode share in 2041; a 6% percentage point decrease from 2015. 

Option 1 may lead to severe crowding on public transport 
(PT) by 2041. There will also be overall growth in traffic due to growth in outer London and growth in km travelled by vans (LGVs) across Greater London. This is likely to result in even greater amounts of harmful emissions affecting environment, human health and historic buildings. Option 1 does not seek to accelerate the natural turnover of the fleet or provide for further incentives for new technologies and therefore emissions will reduce but at a pace too slow given the severity of the issue. 

- 
Help to achieve national 
and international standards for air quality? 
vehicles; 
- 
Introduction of Zero Emission Capable taxis 
In addition to proposals contained in Option 2, Option 3 contains measures with demand management and road pricing policies. Road pricing policies are forecast to reduce road traffic - car mode share falls to 20% and morning peak hour traffic is reduced by 10%. The reduction in traffic reduces harmful air pollution which will improve human health and the environment. 

 

- 
Providing the incentives to support the transition to 
ULEVs; 
- 
Ensure the infrastructure is in place to support the 
transition to ULEVs; 
- 
Procurement of cleaner buses; and 
- 
Bus priority for Low Emissions Bus Zones. 
Option 2 overall would deliver 28% car mode share in 2041, which represents just 2% percentage point improvement from the Option 1 car mode share. Packages achieve mode shift, public transport growth and relieve crowding, however they do not have significant impact on traffic volumes to relieve congestions and to provide a less traffic dominated city. 

Provision of new green infrastructure as part of the transport schemes can accommodate routes for walking and cycling 

growth in travel by cars and vans in Outer London which will not address current inequalities in exposure to poor 

Air pollutants cause around 9,400 equivalent deaths every year in London due to poor air quality. Large numbers of the population are exposed to levels of NO2 
above the EU limit value.  
TfL's modelling indicates that the proposals under Option 
1 will not reduce air pollution to within the legal limits. Whilst some reduction is possible, significant health impacts will occur across London with the number of poor air quality related diseases and deaths likely to rise with an aging population, as this is the group that includes most of the people more vulnerable to the acute effects of air pollutant exposure. 

for accelerating the uptake of lower emissions petrol and diesel vehicles in the short-term combined with a focus on zero emissions technology in the medium and long term would reduce emissions from road transport and improve air quality as compared to Option 1. This is combined with policies and proposals to optimise the network, incremental expansion and establish new connections. This would have positive impacts to those vulnerable groups living near areas of heavy congestion and roads. Measures such as the London-wide ULEZ will help tackle areas of NO2 exceedance in Outer London while additional standards for cars and vans in Inner London will target areas of London with higher concentrations. The London Environment Strategy will show the distributional impact of the policies and proposals within the MTS combined with other non-transport policies. This will give more clarity as to whether the overall level of pollution across London will continue to be higher in the poorest communities, indicating that the disparity ratio/pattern across the city in exposure to harmful pollution will continue to persist. This is where the London Plan can play a role in the siting of new affordable housing.  
Measures to specifically address short-term effects of the exposure to harmful emissions around sensitive receptors such as schools and hospitals across the whole of London are expected within the London Environment Strategy. 

Option 3 offers the most potential for health improvements through reduction of air quality emissions from reduced car use. 

TfL's emissions modelling indicates that the proposals under Option 2 could mean that more than 70% of London's roads will meet NO2 limit values in the early 2020s and could reach 
99% compliance with further action implemented by the national government. 

Whilst London meets air quality limits for particulate matter, London will continue to breach the WHO standards in the short-term before achieving a 47% reduction in PM2.5 
emissions by 2041 compared in 2013. Therefore, significant health impacts will occur across London with the number of air quality related diseases and deaths likely to rise with an aging population. However, the London Environment Strategy 

Only a small number of European sites within the GLA and wider zone of influence are considered to be specifically sensitive to air pollution (i.e. Epping Forest SAC and Wimbledon Common SAC).  
Current trends suggest that policies and proposals in the current MTS (2010) are unlikely to offer positive effects to European sites via air quality. Without additional 
measures to tackle the issue of air quality, London will continue to be non-compliant with legal limits with higher levels of exposure to pollutants. Increasing economic 
growth and development will lead to increased car use and congestion leading to localized air quality issues. 
The current MTS (2010) includes specific text in relation 
to air quality and European sites associated with Policy 
15 as follows, paragraph 180: 
"Poor air quality is known to have adverse effects on habitats including European designated sites of nature conservation importance. The Mayor's commitment to a reduction in polluting emissions from transport also aims to reduce the adverse impact of poor air quality on such sites". 
Option 1 doesn't seek to accelerate the natural turnover 
of the fleet or provide for further incentives for new technologies and therefore emissions will reduce but at a 
pace too slow given the severity of the issue. ULEZ will 
improve the situation in central London. 
 
for further optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections would reduce emissions from road transport and improve air quality as compared to Option 1 and could mitigate effects on European sites sensitive to effects of nitrogen deposition and acidification (which include Epping Forest SAC and Wimbledon Common SAC). Option 2 currently includes no specific text in relation to air quality and European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. 
 
 
Additional packages in Option 3 are likely to significantly improve air quality via reduction of car mode share which may have further positive effects for 
European sites sensitive to effects of nitrogen deposition and acidification (which include Epping Forest SAC and Wimbledon Common SAC) over Option 2. Option 3 currently includes no specific text in relation to air quality and European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of 
European sites. 


Measures to improve air quality plus policies to reduce car trips by 10% will have a positive economic impact in terms of 
reducing premature deaths and health costs. 
However the introduction/expansion of low emission zones 
will impose costs on businesses as they have to 
replace/retrofit vehicles to meet the required standards or pay the requisite charge. 
At this stage it is not clear if the economic benefits will 
outweigh the costs. 
 
The additional measures that will lead to considerable reduction in vehicle kilometres will lead to further reductions 
in the economic costs of poor air quality.  
It is likely that the costs to business of 
demand management will be offset by 
faster journey times. 
However, there may be some short to medium term adverse economic impacts 
on some economic sectors and small business. 
change adaptation and mitigation 
2. To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks 

Option 1 suggests a number of proposals to reduce the likelihood and severity of climate change through emission reduction strategies. The option also includes some proposals to improve the resilience of London's transport system to extreme weather events. However, none of the proposals within the option directly addresses the impacts that climate change will have on human health. It also does not address in detail the growing ageing population and the unequal effects that climate change will have on vulnerable populations, i.e. the effects that may affect more people with time as the population ages. This is not necessarily the case, as measures to increase active travel and reduce sedentary behaviour for travel in general (excluding during these events) can also improve health and delay disease and thus keep people healthier to older ages. 

Additionally, it does not consider the change in travel pattern/modes that are likely to occur or should be encouraged in extreme weather events. In periods of extreme heat or flooding, active transport is likely to result in illness or injury and should be avoided. If it is avoided throughout these events, there can be increased congestion and crowding on alternative modes of transport such as public transport and cars. Depending on the duration of the events, some people can be encouraged to remain at home and not travel. A similar situation occurs during periods of extreme cold, when snow or icy conditions can both precipitate asthma attacks, strokes and heart attacks and can also lead to injuries through pedestrian falls. Fractures and other injuries tend to be more serious among older people, due both to different patterns of injury and to the effects of comorbidity, with worse sequelae for older people, in general. 



Option 2 acknowledges the key issues relevant to health impacts and the effects of climate change, notably the issue of heat on the Underground and the unequal effects that climate change will have on vulnerable populations. 

However, it does not contain proposals to address these issues but commits to undertaking research into the issues and implementing measures based on the research. Such measures are likely to take a significant amount of time to implement. The impacts of climate change such as flooding and episodes of extreme heat are already occurring and as such, significant health impacts are likely to arise prior to the implementation of these measures. Additionally, as with Option 1, it does not consider the change in travel pattern/modes that are likely to occur or should be encouraged in extreme weather events. In periods of extreme heat or flooding, active transport is likely to result in illness or injury and should be avoided. If it is avoided throughout these events, there is increased congestion and crowding on alternative modes of transport such as public transport and cars. Proposals to increase the tree canopy will also have small effects on absorbing carbon emissions but will have a greater effect on providing shade for pedestrians and other road users. 

maintaining operational performance standards. cater for the high volumes of rainfall and the London network of underground tunnels is also vulnerable to flooding. Therefore, in the absence of additional proposals to increase the resilience of the transport network, costs will likely to continue to rise to maintain operational 
performance. 
issues of climate change and extreme weather events in 
relation to London's transport system and its impacts on human health. 
However, Option 1 does not address in detail the 
growing ageing population and the unequal effects that climate change will have on the vulnerable population. The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, 
and are likely to increase existing inequalities. 
The effects of climate change will not be experienced 
equally among London's population and are likely to 
increase existing inequalities due to population ageing. The proposals in Option 1 may not be sufficient to address the growing need to adapt to climate change in 
an equitable way. 
refer to the threats posed by climate change. It does not contain any proposals or policies that specifically 
address flood risk. 
issue.  However, it is assumed that new infrastructure set out in the Strategy will have resilience built in. 
While demand management measures included in Option 3 will reduce some of the causes of climate change by increasing mode shift - greater dependence on public transport increases the risk of London becoming less resilient to climate change, that is, if a network goes down a higher proportion of people will be impacted unless further action is taken to improve resilience of existing infrastructure, which may include greater use of infrastructure and SUDs as a result of freeing up road space.    
change adaptation, which were found in the Scoping report to 
be significant for London in the context of the transport strategy, i.e. the transport sector seeks to contribute to 
environment and reducing impacts on the wider environment. 

tackle climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050 

- Invest in green 
technologies, equipment and infrastructure that 
reduce GHG emissions? 
- Contribute to effective traffic 
management to reduce GHG emissions? 
- Help develop more efficient 
and sustainable freight transportation? 
Option 1 contains proposals and several policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions through a mixture of mode shift and technological advancements. However, road transport will continue to contribute significantly to CO2 
emissions with HGVs and buses expected to contribute a higher proportion of CO2 emissions in the future as other sectors are expected to decarbonise more rapidly. There is currently a requirement to reduce road traffic by 40% 
in order to meet current 2025 CO2 emissions reduction target. As London is not currently meeting the Mayor's CO2 emission target i.e. a reduction in London's CO2 
emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2025 means that Option 1 does not sufficiently address the issue of CO2 
emissions reduction and the Mayor's CO2 emissions targets are likely not be met if additional reduction measures are not put in place by the MTS. 

 

London's transport is more resilient to the impacts of severe weather and climate change, which can provide benefits in the long- term. However, there are no specific proposals in the short-term to deal with the flood risk on London Underground; for example, currently there are 85 sites (57 stations, 16 shafts and 10 tunnel portals and 2 others) which 
are at high and rising risk of flooding.33 
effective tools available for managing environmental risks such as flooding and heatwaves. 

Option 2 offers policies to address the issues of climate change mitigation and contains proposals and several policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions through a mixture of mode shift and technological advancements. Proposals to increase the level of low carbon and renewable energy generation, such as solar, to supply transport will deliver significant carbon savings.  
Proposals to increase the tree canopy will have small effects on absorbing carbon emissions. 

Option 2 has a clear target of achieving London's entire transport system to be net 'zero carbon' by 2050. Modal shift policies are usually weak in terms of the quantity of CO2. Modal shift measures can be effective when well targeted, particularly when integrated with demand management measures. They cannot, however, form the corner-stone of effective CO2 abatement policy and the prominence given to modal shift policies is at odds with indications that most modal shift policies achieve much lower abatement levels than measures focussing on fuel efficiency. 

greater energy ensure a 

energy system for all? 
Option 1 includes a limited amount of proposals to increase the uptake of green/cleaner fuels (e.g. the implementation of ULEZ in Central London). It does not contain proposals that encourage the uptake of renewable energy specifically. 

Option 1 does not seek to provide infrastructure to make a better use of renewable energy sources. 

continue to use it although considerable 

Option 3 presents a package of pricing schemes and proposes further pricing strategies. TfL supplied modelling indicates that this is able to reduce CO2 
emissions from Option 1 to two million tonnes per annum by 2041. This suggests that Option 3 is effectively able to shift the reliance on fossil fuels and encourage the uptake of green/cleaner fuels and renewable energy. 

Option 2 does not contain significantly more measures that encourage the uptake of the green/cleaner fuels than Option 1. It includes some measures to increase the level of low carbon energy generation on TfL's estate or supply to its assets. TfL supplied modelling indicates that Option 2 does not reduce CO2 emissions any more than Option 1. This suggests that the proposals Option 2 contains do not sufficiently encourage the uptake of green/cleaner fuels and renewable energy. 

The impact of Option 3 is the same as Option 2 as the additional packages are not likely to have an impact. 

Option 2 contains the Greenwich Power Station project which will install additional generation alongside the existing engines and deliver significant electricity and carbon savings.  It also contains proposals to reuse waste heat from the Tube to support new heat networks such as the planned Bunhill project, which will use excess energy from Northern line tunnels to warm 454 homes. TfL plans to build on this by introducing further schemes that exploit Tube waste heat, using its land and assets for new low-carbon energy generation, and working alongside TfL's other business areas on energy storage technology to save costs and encourage the growth of electrified transport in London. 

Proposed provision of new green infrastructure such as green roofs can greatly reduce the amount of energy needed to keep the temperature of a building comfortable year-round by insulating against extensive heat loss in the winter and heat absorption in the summer. Proposed new planting of trees 

- 
Manage existing flood risks 
appropriately and avoid 
new flood risks? 
the risk of 
flooding from all sources and improve the 
resilience of 
people, property and infrastructure to 
flooding 
contain any proposals or policies that specifically 
address flood risk or the risk that flooding pose to people. 
As the frequency of flooding increases, the risks and impacts on people will increase. The proposals to increase resilience of the transport system are unlikely to 
be sufficient to reduce the impacts of flooding on human 
health, particularly on mental wellbeing. 
- 
Avoid new development in areas prone to flood risk or 
mitigate the potential for 
such risk? 
- 
review of strategic flood 
risks to assets and 
operations and undertake appropriate risk management? 

- 
Reduce risk to critical 
infrastructure 

Increases in extreme weather events due to climate change will damage the resilience for the transport network and increase the cost and complexity of 
maintaining operational performance standards. TfL's 
highway drainage systems are not designed to cater for the high volumes of rainfall and London network of 
underground tunnels is also vulnerable to flooding. 
Therefore, in the absence of additional proposals to increase the resilience of the transport network, costs will 
likely to continue to rise to maintain operational 
performance. 
can reduce the risk that flooding poses to human health.  

While there are proposals to undertake research to understand and prioritise risk of severe weather and climate change on London's transport network until these are understood, there are no concrete proposals to address the issue.  However, it is assumed that new infrastructure set out in the Strategy will have resilience built in. 

While there are proposals to undertake research to understand and prioritise risk of severe weather and climate change on London's transport network until these are understood, there are no concrete proposals to address the issue. However, it is assumed that new infrastructure set out in the Strategy will have resilience built in. 

While measures will reduce some of the causes of climate change by increasing mode shift - greater dependence on through encouraging the build-up of soil organic matter and the action of tree roots. Also, trees have the potential to remove and immobilise contaminants through the processes of phytoremediation and phyto-stabilisation, and these processes are an inexpensive in situ approach to remediation. The establishment of vegetation on contaminated previously developed land can break the pollutant linkage pathways, for example through prevention of soil erosion which minimises dust production and reduces the risk to humans. 

historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural value in relation to their significance and their settings. 
through legislation. However in addition to such protection, Option 1 contains proposals that are likely to 
enhance and increase access to historic environment. such as 'creating clear and easily understandable routes and spaces to make it easier for cyclists, pedestrians and 
disabled people to get about' (see proposal 83, MTS 2010) will have a positive health impact as it will remove barriers to use and increase community connectivity. 

Have an adverse impact on local historic assets, historic buildings and archaeological deposits? 

decreased congestion and reduce the dominance on cars on the street. The reduced congestion, in conjunction with the proposals contained in Option 2, will further enhance the key transport facilities and make them more accessible to all by removing further barriers to use. 

Option 2 introduces the 'Healthy Streets Approach' which involves a package of measures that will ultimately enhance key transport facilities, making them more accessible to all. Proposals such as implementing step-free access will increase access to historic environment and will remove barriers of use to those with disabilities, prams and people carrying luggage. Additionally, it will provide an opportunity to design transport hubs with an increased focus on the surrounding historic environment. The planned inclusion of more transport infrastructure schemes which will potentially require land take and may have the potential to affect the historic environment, would be subject to environmental appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment, as appropriate, to ensure protection of cultural heritage and in some cases may offer opportunities for enhancement. On the assumption that these schemes are developed and implemented with these controls, the overall effects of Option 2 at a strategic level on the historic, archaeological and cultural environment of London as a whole are not expected to be significant. 

harmful acidified air pollutants that cause degradation of valuable buildings, especially cultural monuments such as older sandstone and limestone buildings. Other cultural monuments such as rune stones and rock carvings also display evidence of serious damage as a result of acidifying air pollutants; therefore reduction in air pollutants will have positive effects on this IIA objective. 
The planned inclusion of more transport infrastructure schemes which will potentially require land take and may have the potential to affect the historic environment, would be subject to environmental appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment, as appropriate, to ensure protection of cultural heritage and in some cases may offer opportunities for enhancement. On the assumption that these schemes are developed and implemented with these controls, the overall effects of Option 1 at a strategic level on the historic, 
archaeological and cultural environment of London as a 
whole are not expected to be significant. 
and waste  
- 
management in all construction and 
operational activity? 
waste to more sustainable methods such as rail and river 
transport and does not promote materials efficiency in all 
construction and operational practices. 
materials at their highest value and use for as 
long as possible. 
To significantly reduce waste 
generated and achieve high 
reuse and recycling rates 
- 
Promote the principles of 
circular economy when 
aiming for waste reduction, reuse, re-manufacturing 
and recycling? 
Option 2 contains a number of measures to reduce harmful acidified air pollutants that cause degradation of valuable buildings, especially cultural monuments such as older sandstone and limestone buildings. Other cultural monuments such as rune stones and rock carvings also display evidence of serious damage as a result of acidifying air pollutants; therefore reduction in air pollutants will have positive effects on this IIA objective. 
At the same time major infrastructure improvements, i.e. Crossrail 2, may have heritage implications, including demolition of old buildings of historic value, whilst proposed measures for the improvement of capacity on London Underground may result in enhancements being made to historic Underground stations contributing to London's heritage value. Option 2 does not explicitly address conservation and enhancement of Heritage assets; the future of these assets will likely continue to be preserved through legislation. 
proposals to further assist in achieving 
the objective. 

Option 2 contains new large infrastructure schemes and, therefore, more waste will be generated as a result of these proposed large transport projects. Potential construction impacts may include additional noise, vibration and the transport by road of construction spoil - especially for large schemes away from the river (e.g. Bakerloo line extension) 
that are likely to add more traffic on the roads and contribute additional emissions. There could be potential impacts with a large amount of excavated waste from the schemes that this scenario would involve and this would need to be addressed at the design stage to minimise the risks to public safety, as 

- Protect and enhance the 
character of local 
greenscapes? 

Natural Capital  and Natural Environment 

- Enhance the ecological 
function and carrying 
capacity of the greenspace 
network? 
- Will it bring nature closer to 
people, particularly in most 
urbanised parts of the city? 

9.To protect, connect and enhance London's natural 
capital (including 
important habitats, species and landscapes) 
and the services 
and benefits it provides, 
delivering a net positive outcome 
for biodiversity 

- Help to acknowledge 
monetary value to natural 
capital of London? 
At present, London is facing key issues such as protecting green spaces and erosion of valued natural places as a result of increased pressure for transport infrastructure; potential loss of biodiversity as a result of increased pressure for transport infrastructure development to accommodate higher levels of traffic; and existing areas of deficiency in access to nature. Option 1 has limited amount of proposals to enhance transport's contribution to the natural environment.  

- Conserve, enhance or 
create natural and seminatural habitats of 
and operations practices. The current rate of recycling of waste in London is low. Option 2, however, includes proposals addressing reduction of impacts on the wider natural environment associated with supply chains and waste.  Transport providers shall adopt and apply the latest GLA responsible procurement guidance (transitioning to the circular economy). 

the objective. 

Tube, to support new heat networks such as the planned Bunhill project, which will use excess energy from Northern line tunnels to warm 454 homes. The strategy builds on this by introducing further schemes that exploit Tube waste heat, using land and assets for new low-carbon energy generation, and working alongside TfL's other business areas on energy storage technology to save costs and encourage the growth of electrified transport in London. 

Option 2; it does not contain additional proposals to further assist in achieving the objective. 

Option 2 has a number of policies and proposals to improve 
the natural environment in London: 
- 
Transport maintenance schemes of existing green 
space, and improvements should protect existing and provide 
new green infrastructure achieving a net positive impact on biodiversity. 
- 
In order to reduce their impacts on the wider natural 
environment associated with supply chains and waste, transport providers shall adopt and apply the latest GLA 
responsible procurement guidance (transitioning to the 
circular economy). - 
TfL will establish a baseline of ecological data and 
monitor / report regularly to demonstrate positive changes in 
biodiversity. 
Option 1 does not specially address connecting people to natural environment, especially those within the most urbanised parts of the city. It contains one proposal to improve the quality and diversity of London's natural environment through 'greening' open spaces across the transport system. However, the increase in 'green' spaces is likely to be significantly less than the increase in urbanised spaces as a result of transport development and expansion projects. As a result of the increased development, people are unlikely to feel more connected 

Provision of new green infrastructure creates opportunities for longer-distance movement for some species. This allows species to move around, within, and between urban areas improving biodiversity. Well planned, designed and managed green infrastructure can provide for natural features and ecosystem services. Promotion of sustainable urban drainage systems which in turn can improve water quality and thereby improve the diversity of species such as dragonflies and molluscs downstream of the water quality enhancement site. Option 2 includes a number of new transport development schemes which can put pressure to use areas of green space for development purpose, severing corridors and reducing quality and quantity of the natural environment and connectivity between areas of green space. The planned inclusion of more transport infrastructure schemes which will potentially require land take and may have the potential to affect the natural environment would be 
subject to environmental appraisal and Environmental Impact 
Assessment, as appropriate, to ensure protection and 
enhancement of the natural environment. On the assumption that these schemes are developed and 
implemented with these controls, the overall effects of Option 
2 at a strategic level on the natural environment of London as a whole is not expected to be significant. 
Appropriate indicators for ecological data monitoring would 
need to be included in the TfL monitoring framework to monitor / report regularly to demonstrate positive changes in 
biodiversity. 

Option 3 generally offers the same outcomes as Option 2; it does not contain additional proposals to further assist in achieving the objective. 

However, if the demand management and pricing proposals are successful in reducing car dominance, then there is more scope for greening the streets as part of road reallocation. 

Option 2 commits to protecting officially designated spaces, 'providing new green infrastructure to deliver a net positive impact on biodiversity' (see policy 7) and includes proposals to increase the tree canopy through maintaining existing trees and creating greener streets. However, unlike Option 1 that proposes to create 'green' open spaces on the land that is owned by TfL, Option 2 proposes to develop housing and business spaces on TfL-owned land. As a result of the increased development and the further decline in the amount of open spaces within the city, people are unlikely to feel 

depends on the design of the development. Plans focusing on 

legal limits with higher levels of exposure to pollutants. Increasing economic growth and development will lead to increased car use and congestion leading to localized air quality issues. Increased transport development will lead to pressure to use areas of green space for development purpose, severing corridors and reducing quality and quantity of natural environment and connectivity between areas of green space. Increased economic growth is likely to cause an increase in run-off and potential contamination and disruption of flows for surface water and groundwater, there is also likely to be an increase in demand for water. Poor air quality, pressure on green space and poor water quality could all adversely affect European sites. The current MTS (2010) includes the following specific text in relation to European sites associated with Policy 
14: 
Policies and proposals relating to air quality, natural capital and natural environment, water resources and quality, connectivity, infrastructure, housing supply and accessibility could impact on European sites (in most cases indirectly); albeit policies and proposals are not specific to locations relating to sensitive European sites making any major effects (positive or negative) unlikely. Additional packages in Option 3 are likely to significantly improve air quality via reduction of car mode share which may have further positive effects for European sites sensitive to effects of nitrogen deposition and acidification 
(which include Epping Forest SAC and Wimbledon Common SAC) over Option 2. Protecting and enhancing London's green infrastructure (e.g. Policy 7 and associated proposals), may enhance individual European sites or a network of Policies and proposals relating to air quality, natural environment, water resources and quality, connectivity, infrastructure, housing supply and accessibility could impact on European sites (in most cases indirectly); albeit policies and proposals are not specific to locations relating to sensitive European sites making any major effects (positive or negative) unlikely. 

Policies and proposals plus additional packages in Option 2 
for further optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections would reduce emissions from road transport and improve air quality as compared to Option 1 and mitigate effects on European sites sensitive to effects of nitrogen deposition and acidification (which include Epping Forest SAC 
and Wimbledon Common SAC).  
Protecting and enhancing London's green infrastructure (e.g. 

Policy 7 and associated proposals), may enhance individual European sites or a network of sites and/or mobile qualifying features of these sites (including by improvements to water quality) albeit major positive effects are unlikely specifically for European sites.  
In comparison to Option 1, additional packages for further optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections, could increase visitor pressure on European sites (a negative effect) via improving connectivity and 

"All policies and proposals promoted or brought forward by the strategy will not adversely affect the integrity of any European site of nature conservation importance, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. Where an assessment is more appropriate at sub-regional or local level planning, it will be undertaken in accordance with best practice to ensure the aims of the objectives of the strategy are upheld. Any policies and proposals which have the potential to improve accessibility to such European sites will be assessed to ensure the effect of increased visitor pressure does not adversely affect their integrity".  
This strengthens the strategy in respect of protection of 
Noise and vibration  

- Reduce the number of 
people exposed to high levels of noise from roads and railways?  
- Contribute to effective traffic 
management to reduce 
noise levels? (also for HRA) 

10.To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to 
people and 
communities across London and reduce 
inequalities in 
exposure 

- To minimise and reduce 
road, rail and aviation noise and vibration levels and 
disruption to all people and 
communities across London 

Outer London high streets, town centres and communities can be traffic dominated, noisy and 
polluted, eroding local economic vitality and quality of life for residents. Currently in London, parts of the population 
are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds 
the threshold. Option 1 can lead to congestion and overcrowding 
resulting in poor connectivity by public transport. 
Additionally, poor performance by the bus network can lead to high private car use leading to congestion on the roads which will accumulate greater noise levels on the 
roads affecting people, especially those living in 
proximity to roads, thus increasing health inequalities. 
Option 1 proposals are limited and this issue will likely 
persist. 
Noise increases blood pressure; interferes with sleep 
(though intermittent noise is probably more important 
than the almost constant noise from road traffic); and affects concentration. Noise near schools (from roads or airports) affects children's educational attainment, which 
has long-term effects on health and exacerbates 
inequalities. 
accessibility to European sites. Further infrastructure improvements could also unlock land that has capacity for housing. The development of new housing and infrastructure could pose a threat to European sites dependant on its location, extent and design. Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites. Option 2 currently includes no specific text in relation to European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. 

sites and/or mobile qualifying features of these sites (including by improvements to water quality) albeit major positive effects are unlikely specifically for European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 3 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites. The Option 3 currently includes no specific text in relation to European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. 

TfL supplied modelling predicts that the proposals included in Option 3 will result in reduced congestion and a significant decrease in car share across London. This reduced level of congestion and car share is likely to reduce the level of noise people are exposed to from road traffic. 

Option 2 includes a number of proposals to reduce noise and vibration from roads and rail services in London where reasonably practicable. Despite the proposals, there is unlikely to be a reduction in the number of people exposed to high levels of noise from roads and railways. 

TfL supplied modelling shows that congestion will remain high with the implementation of Option 2, resulting in high levels of noise generated from traffic. Additionally, even with the proposed construction mitigation measures, noise levels are likely to increase as a result of new transport infrastructure developments and the proposed Heathrow airport expansion. 

especially for large schemes away from the river (Bakerloo line extension) that are likely to add more traffic on the roads leading to higher levels of emissions. possible for TfL to set a level of ambition to reduce the number of people exposed to noise above a certain threshold. The issue may exacerbate with plans for new transport infrastructure development which will likely contribute to the increasing proportion of people exposed to noise above the threshold as well as plans for the Heathrow airport expansion. There are potential impacts on the natural environment due to some of the schemes in this scenario affecting Natura 2000 sites. As a result of major infrastructure development, there could be potential effects on sites such as the Lee Valley, which includes a number of sites of national and international nature conservation importance. This includes the Walthamstow reservoirs, a series of 10 reservoirs that include designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and which together form the Lee Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site due mostly to their importance for wintering waterfowl. 

Option 2 contains proposals for greener and more resilient streets, with less noise and vibration and an improved public realm.  In addition noise and vibration from rail services in London will be mitigated where reasonably practicable. 

Although Option 2 is seeking to mitigate noise where reasonably practicable, these policies and proposals may not be able to provide necessary safeguards that there will not be any increases in noise and its geographical extent.  There are likely, accordingly, to be negative or uncertain effects against this IIA objective. 

Targets to reduce the number of people exposed to noise levels exceeding the threshold could make the policy stronger and move it from its aspirational content to achieving more tangible noise reduction/limitation results. 

In the long-term, a switch to electric vehicles will potentially have significant beneficial effects with regard to noise Currently in London, parts of the population are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds the threshold with road traffic being the main source of ambient noise in London, followed by rail. Option 1 proposals are limited and it is expected that overall road traffic will continue to grow which will lead to increased congestion and noise. Those living closest to busy roads are likely to be impacted along with children and the elderly being most likely to suffer the effects of high noise levels.    
There is increasingly more evidence 34that suggests exposure to noise is a cause of non-auditory damage to the body (e.g. cardio-vascular, endocrine, metabolic, gastro-intestinal and neurological systems). Performance in certain tasks (such as reading, writing and listening) can also be affected by noise that is sudden or continuous. The groups most at risk are children (babies, preterm/low weight and small gestational age babies and children with disabilities35), the elderly, the chronically ill and people with a hearing impairment.  
In cases where some noise is unlikely to cause hearing loss, it can be an annoyance and reduce the effectiveness of those exposed to it. Those who live and/or work near these streets that are on lower incomes and cannot afford to relocate are likely to be disproportionally affected. 

TfL does not currently have ways of measuring noise levels of impacts as a result of transport so it is impossible to set a quantified level of ambition. Proposal 86 (MTS 2010) currently includes some noise reduction and mitigation measures but this is limited only to areas significantly affected by transport noise and does not seek to eliminate noise.  

busy roads and railways and are on lower incomes and cannot afford to relocate. These people are likely to be disproportionally affected by new traffic noise sources and increased levels. Those that are most vulnerable to the 
impact of noise are children, the elderly, the chronically ill and people with a hearing impairment.  
As with Option 1, although the policy seeks to reduce and 
mitigate noise levels where practicable, it does not aim to eliminate noise and, in the context of already existing noise levels affecting a number of people, it is likely that the overall 
effect of new transport schemes will be negative and will 
further exacerbate inequalities in exposure to noise levels exceeding the thresholds. 

Main source of ambient noise in London is road traffic, followed by rail. 13% of people rate road transport as the greatest source of noise and consider it a 
'serious problem'36. A fifth of Londoners are annoyed or disturbed in their homes by noise with buses and lorries creating the most disturbing noise.   
The additional demand management and pricing policies will significantly reduce the number of buses, coaches and HGVs in London. This will have a positive impact on noise and vibrations from road traffic.   
Whilst this will reduce the noise and vibrations from road transport, it is important to note that this will not reduce those coming from rail and aviation.  
Option 3 will still have some negative impacts due to the disruptions resulting from new large transport infrastructure schemes that are likely to increase the proportion of people exposed to noise exceeding the threshold. The people affected are usually living near airports, busy roads and railway that are on lower incomes and cannot afford to relocate. 

Although the construction will only be temporary, these people are likely to be disproportionally affected by new noise levels during this time.  
It is therefore important that these new infrastructure schemes adhere to environmental standards and practices 

- 
Contribute to the sustainable use of waterways for passenger 
and freight transport? 
- 
Protect and enhance the character and use of London's riverscapes and 
waterways? 
11.To protect and enhance London's water bodies by ensuring that London has a sustainable water supply, drainage and sewerage system 

- 
Protect and enhance the regions waterbodies to achieve a good ecological 
Option 1 does not specifically address water quality. 

Therefore this issue is heavily reliant on legislation at the project level stages. Current trends suggest that policies and proposals in the current MTS (2010) are unlikely to offer positive effects to European sites via water resources and quality. Increased economic growth is likely to cause an increase in run-off and potential contamination and disruption of flows for surface water and groundwater, there is also likely to be an increase in demand for water.  
Projects referred to in relation to Option 1 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  
 

Connectivity  
12.To enhance 
- Improve connectivity by 
AEI 
- 
+ 
+ 

for water. Option 2 does not specifically address water quality. Therefore this issue is heavily reliant on legislation at the project level stages. New transport schemes would be subject to environmental appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment, as appropriate, to ensure protection of the water resources and quality. 

The draft MTS includes Proposal 42 "…Other non-road transport projects should be designed to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible (in accordance with the drainage hierarchy set out in the London Plan). In all cases drainage should be designed and implemented in ways that deliver other Mayoral priorities, including water quality, biodiversity and amenity". 

Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites.  

The draft MTS includes Proposal 42 
"…Other non-road transport projects should be designed to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible (in accordance with the drainage hierarchy set out in the London Plan). In all cases drainage should be designed and implemented in ways that deliver other Mayoral priorities, including water quality, biodiversity and amenity". 
Projects referred to in relation to Option 
3 would be subject to project specific 
Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects on the 
integrity of European sites.  
overcrowding on services particularly at peak times; 
and bus services? 
| -                                           | Congestion on roads as a result of poor    |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| connectivity by public transport leading to |                                            |
| excessive reliance on private cars; and     |                                            |
| and improve                                 |                                            |
| connectivity for                            |                                            |
| all to and from                             |                                            |
| and within and                              |                                            |
| around London                               |                                            |
| and increase the                            |                                            |
| proportion of                               |                                            |
| journeys made                               |                                            |
| by sustainable                              |                                            |
| and active                                  |                                            |
| transport modes                             |                                            |
| -                                           |                                            |
|                                             | Reduce congestion on                       |
| roads across all parts of                   |                                            |
| London?                                     |                                            |
| -                                           | Reduced connectivity in Central London by  |
| walking as a result of congestion and       |                                            |
| overcrowding on pavements and footpaths.    |                                            |

- Reduce congestion on 
public pavements and footpaths, especially in central London? 
- Reduce overcrowding at 
stations and stops and on 
platforms?    
Option 1 includes proposals for improving walking and cycling which can lead to growth in cycling to 6% mode share in 2041. Option 1 includes proposals which are likely to decrease congestion on the footpaths: 
- 
Deliver a new pedestrian and cycle bridge between 
Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf; and - 
Pedestrianise Oxford Street. 
- Reduce severance and 
consequent inequalities for those groups who are more 
greatly affected by 
severance (e.g. people on low incomes, disabled people, children and young 
people, older people and 
people dependent on walking and using public transport for travel)? 
Option 1 also delivers a 30% car mode share in 2041; a 6% decrease from 2015 but there is still an increase in vehicle kilometres. At the same time, Option 1 can lead to severe crowding by 2041 and some growth in outer London and growth in vans across the city leading to more traffic.  
The issues of poor connectivity are likely to deteriorate further as a result of increasing pressure on the transport system. Despite the above proposals, Option 1 will lead to a worsening congestion across London and increasing cost of congestion to the economy.  

- Increase accessibility to 
employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all people living in London 
by public transport, walking 
and cycling? 
- Will there be additional 
noise impacts on designated habitats? 
- Promote green 
2041. An increase in cycling mode share will lead to active travel resulting in improved health. 

Option 1 also includes proposals which are likely to decrease congestion on some footpaths: 
- 
Deliver a new pedestrian and cycle bridge between Demand management and road pricing provides a significant mode shift leading to significant reductions in road congestion and increases in vehicle speeds which should provide a significant economic boost to London's economy. However these measures are likely to lead to increased congestion at stops and stations due to mode shift which will have economic costs. 

Option 2 builds on Option 1 and contains a number of additional proposals to improve connectivity, as well as improvements to bus services. Option 2 Improves access to employment opportunities in areas less well served by rail thereby supporting economic growth in these areas. It also improves access to employment opportunities for lower income groups who are more dependent on bus links. Package B would restore bus growth across London (particularly in the centre) and reduce the impact of car traffic on roads of high place value. Package C drives rail and underground growth further with line upgrades and metroisation leading to reductions in crowding on key corridors. Package D leads to connectivity improvements along key corridors, widespread crowding reduction and more noticeable vehicle km reduction. Packages achieve mode shift, public transport growth and relieve crowding, however they do not have significant impact on traffic volumes to relieve congestions to provide less traffic dominated city.  
Option 3 builds upon the proposals in Option 2 and includes a range of further enhancements such as providing improved information to travellers (e.g. live information as to the level of crowding) and road pricing which will increase the level of sustainable mode contains proposals to improve cycling and walking connectivity through the 'Healthy Streets Approach', which will ultimately benefit human health.  
Option 2 also includes proposals to build a cycle network of new Quietways, the Central London Cycle Grid, more Cycle Superhighways and the Mini-Hollands in Enfield, Kingston Severance can be caused by transport infrastructure, motorised traffic and natural barriers such as rivers. Areas of high severance contribute to reduced active travel due to limited walkability and cyclability.  
This option contains some proposals (such as additional river crossings) that improve accessibility and connectivity of places which will reduce severance and the consequent inequalities affected by it. However they share. These proposals will increase the mode share of walking to 27% (2% higher than Option 1 and 2) and the level accessibility for people across London, including those who are disproportionally impacted by lack of access.  
However, there are no proposals that directly address the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London, which is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population.  

infrastructure. accessibility to transport, services and employment; this would benefit those within outer London communities who are disproportionally impacted by lack of access and whose health and wellbeing consequently is negatively impacted. The regenerative potential for enhanced transport provision within outer London areas will broadly enhance health and wellbeing and again serve to reduce inequalities. However, there are no proposals that directly address the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London, which is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population. Additionally, Option 2 is likely to lead to increased road congestion which also restricts accessibility. 
connectivity across London which can result in reduction in 
congestion and crowding on services particularly at peak times which will reduce safety risks. 
Option 3 contains proposals to increase 
public transport demand through 
demand management and pricing with 
no additional direct public transport improvement from Option 2. Whilst there may be more passengers on the 
networks as a result of a modal shift from 
driving to public transport, it is mitigated by the proposals to increase public transport capacity and connectivity 
across London which can reduce 
congestion and overcrowding on services particularly at peak times will reduce safety risks. 
Unless, suitable mitigation measures are 
put in place, the introduction of demand 
management and pricing measures could have disproportionate impacts on 
disabled people who are reliant on 
private vehicles to access employment and leisure opportunities, particularly 
those who live in areas of Outer London 
accessibility for all and reduce inequalities for those groups that are greatly affected. The additional connectivity provided 
by new cycle and walking routes, enhanced urban realm and 
greater emphasis on safety and inclusivity should reduce the inequalities faced by vulnerable groups due to severance. 
The additional river crossings and bridges in East London in particular will reduce severance for the low income families in 
Increased connectivity could increase visitor pressure on 
European sites.  
The current MTS (2010) includes the following specific text in relation to European sites associated with Policy 
14: 
"….. Any policies and proposals which have the potential to improve accessibility to such European sites will be assessed to ensure the effect of increased visitor pressure does not adversely affect their integrity".  
This strengthens the strategy in respect to protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 1 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations 
Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity 
of European sites.  

that area. The strategy considers how social needs transport could be better integrated with other public transport services. This will ensure that the most vulnerable who view public transport as a barrier, are not negatively impacted. 

with low levels of accessible public transport. The additional packages related to demand management and road pricing may have a slight negative impact on accessibility to jobs that are only accessible by car. However, this would be mitigated by plans to ensure greater connectivity across London with more bus routes and alternative modes of public transport to serve the areas which are less accessible. However, demand management and road pricing may disproportionately impact those that are low income that 
need to travel into Central London by car. This may be mitigated by the accessible and well connected public transport networks suggested as part of 
the strategy.   
Option 3 offers the same outcomes as Option 2; it does not contain additional 
proposals to further assist in achieving 
the objective. 
In comparison to Option 1, additional packages for further 
optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections, could increase visitor pressure on European sites (a negative effect) via improving connectivity and 
accessibility to European sites. 
Option 2 currently includes no specific text in relation to 
European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect 
of protection of European sites. 
Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no 
adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  
Infrastructur
provision of environmental, social and physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet population and demographic change in line with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness 
 
Projects referred to in relation to Option 1 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites. 
Economic 
14.To maintain 
- Improve interchange 
Option 3 offers the same outcomes as Option 2; it does not contain additional proposals to further assist in achieving the objective. 
In comparison to Option 1, additional packages for expansion of the transport infrastructure and new connections could impact European sites both directly and indirectly depending on their location and extent. In comparison to Option 1, additional packages for expansion 
of the transport infrastructure and new connections could increase visitor pressure on European sites (a negative effect) 
via improving connectivity and accessibility to European sites. 
Further infrastructure improvements could also unlock land that has capacity for housing. The development of new housing could pose a threat to European sites dependant on 
its location, extent and design. 
Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no 
adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  

competitiven ess and employment and strengthen London's position as a leading, connected, knowledge based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economy providing opportunities for all 

- Increase accessibility to 
employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all? 
Option 1 may lead to increased crowding by 2041 and some growth in outer London and growth in vans across the city leading to more traffic as well as leading to weaker performance of bus network. 

Without additional measures capacity on rail routes and multi-modal connectivity towards central London, this could be a threat to London's competitiveness in terms of its ability to attract a flexible labour force. 

Poor services connectivity as a result of congestion, particularly in the south and south east London will suffer even greater from poor access to jobs, further hampering economic growth. 

Demand  in employment growth in central London will be dependent on the capacity on rail routes and multi-modal connectivity towards central London, which with further overcrowding on the rail network, projected to increase by, is not likely to be met, leading to productivity decline/stagnation. 

 
 
- Contribute to the alleviation 
of poverty by providing affordable/discounted travel for disadvantaged sections 
of the community? 
- Improve network resilience 
and service reliability? 
- Ensure that provision of 
environmental, social and 
physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to 
meet population and 
demographic change in line 
with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness? 
Demand management will radically reduce congestion on the road network and should lead to significant improvements in bus service reliability and journey times. However crowding levels are likely to increase on public transport due to substantial increases in passenger numbers. This will reduce network resilience due to lack of spare capacity. 

Option 2 contains a number of proposals which will provide significant economic benefits to businesses through a substantial increase in transport capacity. Crossrail 2 could directly support thousands of jobs (60,000 across the UK while it is being built and a further 200,000 when services start). Supporting infrastructure to HS2 will radically improve access between London and the UK's key economic centres. Additional transport provision will improve resilience although with levels of usage there will be limited spare capacity available to provide any material improvement in resilience. Compared to Option 1, Option 2 has an increase in public transport capacity causing an additional reduction in crowding, although there will not be a significant change in traffic volumes. 

Option 3 presents the same benefits as those listed in Option 2.  
The additional packages related to demand management and pricing may have a slight impact on accessibility to jobs that are only accessible by car. 

However this would be mitigated by plans to ensure greater connectivity across London with more bus routes and alternative modes of public transport to serve the areas which are less accessible.  
 
Option 2 includes proposals that can increase accessibility to employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all. This is achieved through ensuring accessibility for all and increasing the transport networks (via additional bridge crossings) to areas which were previously less accessible such as East London and Silvertown.   
Option 2 also includes the fares freeze as well as protection of concessions for older and disabled people, children, those in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance, and other socially disadvantaged groups during the Mayor's term. 

Option 2 will likely increase accessibility to employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all? There are important health consequences of employment. It will reduce potential negative effects of poor employment (exposure to toxins; high demand/low control jobs) and contribute to health consequences from employment - reduce adverse effects on mental and physical health of unemployment - both lack of 

Sustainable Land Use 
- Make the best use of land 
through appropriate development on brownfield sites and use of existing transport network? 
15. Make the best and most efficient use of land so as to support sustainable patterns and forms of development? 
- Support delivery of a net 
positive outcome for biodiversity? 
Increased transport development will put pressure to use areas of green space for development purpose, severing corridors and reducing quality and quantity of natural environment and connectivity between areas of green space. Option 1 has limited amount of proposals to enhance transport's contribution to the natural environment. 
maximise mode shift to 
demand management and road 
pricing as well as all policies and 
proposals in the Draft Revised MTS 
Option 3 offers the same outcomes as 
Option 2; it does not contain additional proposals to further assist in achieving the objective. 

Option 2 is predicated on an integrated approach to land use planning and the provision of transport services based on the principle that new residential and commercial development 
should be as close as possible to high quality public transport.  
This will be pursued through: - 
The alignment of transport investment with the growth 
strategy set out in the London Plan, including the prioritisation of investment in Opportunity Areas and transport growth corridors. - 
Making the most efficient use of land by promoting higher 
density development around stations and interchanges. - 
Targeting bus service investment in areas with low 
accessibility to facilitate development opportunities - 
Investing in new bus rapid transit where it can unlock 
housing development.  
- 
Investment in tube upgrades and extensions to facilitate 
the growth of identified Opportunity Areas in the London Plan.  
In the short to medium term the revised strategy also commits TfL to delivering homes and commercial developments on its 
own land within or around transport hubs to increase densities 
in the most accessible locations. This will be supported by the healthy streets approach, including that adopted in new developments. There are a number of policies and proposals to improve the natural environment in London: 
- 
Transport maintenance schemes (of existing green 
space) and improvements should protect existing and provide 
new green infrastructure in order to result in a net positive impact on biodiversity. 
- 
In order to reduce their impacts on the wider natural 
environment associated with supply chains and waste, 
transport providers will adopt the latest GLA responsible procurement guidance (transitioning to the circular economy). 

Housing Supply, Quality, Choice and Affordability 
quantum, type, quality and tenure of housing (including specialist and affordable provision) to better meet demographic change and household demand    

- 
Improve transport connectivity to areas with the greatest capacity for development? 
- 
Unlock land that has 
capacity for housing development? 
Option 1 can lead to severe crowding by 2041 and some growth in outer London and growth in vans across the city leading to more traffic as well as leading to weaker performance of bus network. Without additional measures capacity on rail routes and multi-modal connectivity towards central London, this could be a threat to London's competitiveness in terms of its ability to attract a flexible labour force. Poor services connectivity as a result of congestion, particularly in the south and south east London will suffer even greater from poor access to jobs, further hampering economic growth. Demand in employment growth in central London will be dependent on the capacity of rail routes and multi-modal connectivity towards central London. However , overcrowding on the rail network is projected to increase leading to productivity decline/stagnation. 

Option 1 contains proposals to build 11,000 new homes on 300 acres of TfL-owned land, with 50% of them to be affordable. 

- 
Contributes to the provision 
of affordable housing? 
The lack of affordable housing is a critical issue disproportionately affecting low income Londoners, young people (under the age of 25) and disabled people in London. 

Despite efforts to maximise affordable housing provision on TfL owned sites, Option 1 does not directly address contribution to the provision of affordable housing London-wide. 

substantial housing development, Crossrail 2 alone aims to facilitate the delivery of around 200,000 homes In addition, extension of Overground and Bakerloo will support the delivery of 11,000 and 25,000 new homes 
respectively.  
Extending bus services to open up sites not on the rail network is also proposed. 
Reduced car demand potentially frees up more space for housing as less space is needed for car parking. Further reductions in congestion will also improve accessibility. 

Like Option 2, Option 3 also does not provide commitments in terms of housing availability and affordability in relation to those housing sites on TfL land that may be brought forward by the Mayor. 

Option 2 contains proposals for additional housing by identifying development opportunities along the transport network. Proposal 91 states that TfL will consider when surplus transport land becomes available, its accessibility to the transport network and its potential for the development of sustainable affordable housing. 

However, the majority of proposals related to housing development do not specifically state that houses built will be affordable. 

The current MTS (2010) includes the following specific text in relation to European sites associated with Policy 14: 
"….. Any policies and proposals which have the potential to improve accessibility to such European sites will be assessed to ensure the effect of increased visitor pressure does not adversely affect their integrity".  
This strengthens the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 1 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity 
of European sites.  
Option 1 does not specifically include proposals that can increase accessibility for all to historic and cultural 
environments. 
- 
Improve accessibility for all 
to historic and cultural environments? 
Culture 
17.To safeguard and enhance the Capital's rich cultural offer, 
infrastructure, heritage, natural 
environment and 
talent to benefit all Londoners while delivering new 
activities that 
strengthen London's global position 
Accessibility   18.To maximise  
AEI 
0 
- Improve accessibility to all 
public transport modes?   
Option 1 includes limited proposals that can increase accessibility to all public transport modes. 
accessibility for all 
in and around 
London 
- Reduce travel times for 
mobility impaired people? 
- Improve legibility and ease 
of use of the transport network for people with 
sensory or cognitive 
impairments? 
- Help enable mobility 
impaired people to access 
Option 3 offers the same outcomes as Option 2; it does not contain additional proposals to further assist in achieving the objective. 
Option 2 contains proposals to build 11,000 new homes on 300 acres of TfL-owned land. In addition, extension of Overground and Bakerloo will support the delivery of 11,000 and 25,000 new homes respectively.  
Dependant on the specific locations of these developments this could increase visitor pressure on European sites in comparison to Option 1. Option 2 currently includes no specific text in relation to European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect 
of protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  
Option 3 offers the same outcomes as Option 2; it does not contain additional 
proposals to further assist in achieving 
the objective. 
Option 2 includes a package of measures that are likely to improve accessibility for all to historic and cultural 
environments including embedding accessibility and 
inclusivity in planning and design. However, Option 2 does not contain concrete proposals to 
address non-physical barriers for people with sensory or 
cognitive impairments. Option 2 proposals contain a number of measures to increase accessibility to all public transport modes, including: 
By removing a large amount of traffic, severance should be reduced improving 
accessibility to public transport. 
- 
Increase in step-free access (100+ by 2022); 
- 
Upgrade National Rail stations to step-free, 15 stations delivered every 5 years; 
- 
Cutting congestion will involve working with business 
to help meet freight needs in the safest, cleanest and most efficient way possible, providing better road 
information and improved coordination of planned 
roadworks; 

- 
95% of bus stops will be accessible by 2017. 
negatively impact this objective.   
pushchairs. become step-free. These include Bond Street, Finsbury Park, Tottenham Court Road and Victoria. 

However, their impact is likely to be compromised by increased crowding, which is the biggest barrier to access to public transport for disabled customers and those with reduced mobility. This accessibility barrier is likely to be further exacerbated by the ageing population and significant increase in people over 65 years of age. 

measurable contribution towards ensuring Londoners have access to a green space within 250m of where they live. 

transport system must be inclusive and accessible for all. In addition to the step-free access improvements delivered by Option 1, Option 2 will also focus on improving accessibility at stations elsewhere across London. Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network. Option 2 does not contain specific proposals to address non-physical barriers for people with sensory or cognitive impairments. Option 2, however, will prioritise issues that disproportionately affect some customers more than others. This includes new approaches to dealing with unwanted sexual behaviour and hate crime, improving the confidence of customers to report issues.  
In addition to this, the barrier of high fares has been addressed in Option 2 by ensuring that the fares are frozen and all concessions for older and disabled people are protected for the Mayor's term. Extension of bus hopper fares to include unlimited transfer will also benefit those groups who tend to be more dependent upon this mode of travel that are not entitled to free travel (e.g. women and BAME groups, job seekers). Option 2 also offers customer information in even more languages and Easy Read formats; and seeks to investigate ways to help people better plan their journeys. 

- 
Transport maintenance schemes (of existing green 
space) and improvements should protect existing and 
provide new green infrastructure in order to result in a net positive impact on biodiversity. 
Option 2 does not address deficiencies of access to open space anywhere in the documents. It does not give enough focus in improving access to natural environment which is 

to improve accessibility to such European sites will be assessed to ensure the effect of increased visitor pressure does not adversely affect their integrity".  
This strengthens the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 1 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity 
of European sites. Option 1 includes proposals to pedestrianise Oxford street, deliver new cycle paths and facilities, and makes 
the roads safer to cycle on, which will contribute to 
encouraging a modal shift towards sustainable transport. The proposals to encourage walking and cycling may lead to a 4% growth in cycling by 2041, and a decrease 
of 5.7% in car mode share. 
Despite these proposals, the issue of congestion and 
overcrowding on footpaths across Central London is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population. 
This will result in decreased accessibility for vulnerable 
people who view congestion and overcrowding as a major deterrent for travel. 
objective as it does not set out measures to address this 
optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections, could increase visitor pressure on European sites (a negative effect) via improving connectivity and accessibility to European sites. Option 2 currently includes no specific text in relation to European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 2 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no 
adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  

Option 3 is very much as per Option 2 in respect of impact of improved connectivity. In comparison to Option 1, additional packages for further optimising the network, incremental expansion and new connections, could increase visitor pressure on European sites (a negative effect) via improving connectivity and accessibility to European sites. 

Option 3 currently includes no specific text in relation to European sites which is a weakness in the strategy in respect of protection of European sites. Projects referred to in relation to Option 3 would be subject to project specific Habitat Regulations Assessment to ensure no adverse effects to the integrity of European sites.  
Implementation of the policies and proposals in Option 3 would result in more accessible and better integrated public transport and an increase in active transport facilities. This would encourage a modal shift away from private vehicles, with people having more active lifestyles.  
TfL supplied modelling shows that this Option is able to achieve 80% sustainable mode share. It will increase the mode share of walking to 27% (2% 
higher than Option 1 and 2) and the level accessibility for people across London, In addition to the proposals included in Option 1, Option 2 
includes enhancements such as the 'Healthy Streets Approach' and increased step-free access across the network. 

TfL supplied modelling shows that the proposals to encourage walking and cycling may lead to the same 4% growth in cycling by 2041 as Option 1, but a further 2.3% decline in car mode share.  
However, similarly to Option 1, the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population. This will result in decreased accessibility for vulnerable people who view congestion and overcrowding as a major deterrent for travel. 

private hire vehicles to increase the standards of safety. 
BAME groups and women may be more vulnerable and 
susceptible to issues of safety when using this mode of transportation.  
Option 1 does not reflect the Mayor's community safety 
priority 'Keeping children and young people safe.' 
Crime, safety and security 
- Reduce levels of crime on 
the transport network, in 
particular violent assaults and sexual offences?  
19.To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of 
safety 
- Reduce anti-social 
behaviour on the transport 
network?  
- Create a travel environment 
that feels safe to all users 
during the day time and 
night time?  
- Reduce inequalities for 
those groups who have a 
greater fear of crime (e.g. 
Option 1 does not specifically address violent assaults and sexual offences. 
The Option proposes increased levels of security 
provided on PT which would contribute to reducing 
anxiety and stress through an increased perception of safety. This would result in a positive health impact, particularly for those who view safety concerns as a 
barrier to public transport. However, these are likely to be 
outweighed by the increased level of crowding that also may occur. Vehicle speeds are likely to reduce across London under Option 1. Additionally, a number of other proposals are 
aimed enhanced road safety. This will likely result in 
including those who are disproportionally impacted by lack of access. The proposals to encourage walking and cycling are likely to lead to the same 4% growth in cycling by 2041 as Option 1 and 2, but a further 11.6% decline in car mode share and a 9% increase in PT use is also likely. However, there are no proposals that directly address the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London, which is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population.  
those listed in Option 2. The additional packages do not have an impact on 
reducing the levels of crime on the transport network, in particular violent 
assaults and sexual offences. 
Option 2 includes prioritising action on issues that disproportionately affect some customers more than others. This includes ground breaking approaches to dealing with 
unwanted sexual behaviour and hate crime, improving the 
confidence of customers to report issues and know that action 
will be taken. Vulnerable groups such as women who maybe at higher risk 
of sexual offences when travelling in certain modes of 
transport such as private hire vehicles will be protected through transparent and effective regulation which will bring about higher standards of safety for all customers.   

In addition to the improvements likely under Option 2, Option 3 also includes a number of proposals that are likely to lead to reduced car use and consequently increased safety and the perception of safety for cyclists and pedestrians.   
 
Safety concerns are a barrier to active travel and contribute to inactivity which, in turn, has impacts on health and wellbeing. 

Option 2 contains proposals directly addressing the issues of crime on the transport network and aims to reduce both crime and the perception of crime. The new business plan prioritises action on issues that disproportionately affect some customers more than others. This includes approaches to dealing with unwanted sexual behaviour and hate crime, improving the confidence of customers to report issues and know that action will be taken. Additionally, the Option proposes increased levels of security provided on PT, which would contribute to reducing anxiety and stress through an increased perception of safety. This London Transport Community Safety Partnership and the MTS has not been identified. 

Option 3 presents the same benefits as those listed in Option 2. The additional packages do not have an impact on reducing the proportion of people who do not use the public transport network due to perceptions of safety. It will also not have any direct impact on increasing security and resilience to major incidents on the network.  
The connection between the emerging priorities of the London Transport Community Safety Partnership and the MTS has not been identified. 

  
Option 2 contains proposals directly addressing the issues of crime on the transport network and aims to reduce both crime and the perception of crime. It prioritises action on issues that disproportionately affect some customers more than others. This includes approaches to dealing with unwanted sexual behaviour and hate crime, improving the confidence of customers to report issues and know that action will be taken. Option 2 contains proposals to fund and work alongside the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Roads and Transport Policing Command to prevent crime, antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. Safer Transport Teams, operating across London, will carry on providing local and accessible policing for bus passengers, employees and communities. 

It also adopts the new 'Vision Zero' approach to reducing death and serious injury on our roads, as well as improving the safety of London's Taxi and private industry. This is a priority in Option 2 and includes the employment of additional compliance officers. 

The connection between the emerging priorities of the London Transport Community Safety Partnership and the MTS has not been identified. 

to make sure customers feel confident about using our services at all times. This goal implies addressing safety issues during day and night times. 

Option 3 includes a goal to create an environment where people are safe and feel safe, however they choose to travel. To do this, TfL plans to continue to work with the Capital's police authorities, including the British Transport Police (BTP), to make sure customers feel confident about using our services at all will carry on providing local and accessible policing for bus passengers, employees and communities. Option 2 will have positive effects on public perception of safety and security amongst women and BAME groups who rely on buses and tube services and are more sensitive to safety issues on public transport. This is achieved through:  
industry through the employment of additional compliance officers. It prioritises action on issues that disproportionately affect some customers more than others. This includes approaches to dealing with unwanted sexual behaviour and hate crime, improving the confidence of customers to report issues and know that action will be taken. 

Differences exist between ethnic groups in terms of injury rates from road traffic accidents (this refers to injuries sustained by any road users, so it includes pedestrians, cyclists and car occupants). For both children and adults, road traffic injury rates are higher among black Londoners compared to white and Asian Londoners. Black adults are 1.36 times more likely to be injured on the roads than white adults and 1.32 times more likely to be injured than Asian adults. A similar pattern is seen for children. Option 2 does not contain proposals to target these specific groups. 

Active travel targets unlikely to be met unless this barrier to travel is addressed.   
Some groups in society are likely to remain reluctant to use public transport, particularly at certain times of day. 

and wellbeing of reduce health 

- 
Reduce exposure to air pollution by most vulnerable groups? 
Option 1 included building a cycle network of new Quietways, the Central London Cycle Grid, more Cycle Superhighways and the Mini-Hollands in Enfield, Kingston and Waltham Forest; and improved Santander Cycles infrastructure. However, Option 1 is unlikely to achieve significant modal shift for those groups who own a car. Inactivity is an issue for Londoners with most not being active enough to stay healthy. Inequalities in physical activities are often due to age, levels of deprivation, ethnicity, sex and disability. The key contributory factors to this are accessibility, air pollution, severance, shade and shelter and perception of safety. A number of proposals within Option 1 are aimed at reducing the level of noise pollution. However, the increased congestion on the roads and the increased level of development is likely to outweigh the benefits of these proposals and ultimately annoyance caused by transport noise is likely to be exacerbated. This is particularly problematic as noise disproportionately affects disadvantaged members of society who live in noisy areas and those with mental health issues who are particularly susceptible to annoyance caused by transport noise. 

- Encourage modal shift, 
especially for those groups who own a car, or for older people who are less likely to 
walk or cycle?  
- Reduce levels of physical 
inactivity? 
- 
Improve connectivity to key 
services by promoting 
active modes of transport? 
activity per week. Additionally, London has the highest A number of proposals within Option 1 are aimed at reducing the level of noise pollution. However, the increased congestion on the roads and the increased 

levels of physical inactivity and improve the physical and mental wellbeing of people. At the same time increase in cycling mode share and use of people overall. However, Option 2 is also likely to lead to congestion and the similar amounts of air quality emissions as Option 1. 

of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the city and between communities. The proposals included within this Option will reduce the level of air pollutants significantly below Option 1 and 2. Additionally, TfL's modelling indicates that the proposals contained within Option 3 would have the greatest shift to active modes of transport. This would result in significant improvements to health due to the increase in physical activity for people, the decreased level of air pollutants and noise caused by road transport, and the decreased level of injuries and deaths caused by road traffic collisions. 

 
Option 2 is likely to result in better health outcomes than Option 1, but will still result in significant adverse health impacts as a result of poor air quality, increased congestion and crowding across the transport network, and poor management of the risks that climate change poses to the population. Whilst some improvements are possible through proposals such as the 'Healthy Streets Approach' and increased transport infrastructure, the benefits are unlikely to be outweighed by the impacts resulting from increased congestion, climate change, poor air quality, a larger population and an older population. 

The proposed Direct Vision Standard will have direct positive effects on human health and safety by improving the safety of Option 3 is the most likely option to improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the city and between communities. Additionally, TfL's modelling indicates that the proposals contained within Option 3 would achieve the greatest shift to active modes of transport from the car and are able to achieve an 80% share for sustainable modes. 

This would result in significant improvements to health due to the level of development is likely to outweigh the benefits of these proposals and ultimately annoyance caused by transport noise is likely to be exacerbated. This is particularly problematic as noise disproportionately affects disadvantaged members of society who live in noisy areas and those with mental health issues who are particularly susceptible to annoyance caused by transport noise. Option 1 is the least likely option to improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the city and between communities. Whilst some improvements are likely as a result of improved access (especially to the natural environment when compared with Options 2 and 3) and an increase of active travel mode share, the benefits are unlikely to be outweighed by the adverse impacts resulting from increased congestion, climate change, poor air quality, a larger population and an older population. 

All Options include proposals for encouraging walking and cycling, which may lead to a 4% percentage point growth in cycling by 2041. An increase in active travel will generally lead to improved health, particularly where it is additional to rather than a replacement for existing activity. However, as with all Options, Option 1 does not include any proposals to address the increased congestion on pavements footways across the city. 

Congestion and crowding is a major barrier to transport for the disabled. 

increase in physical activity among Londoners, the decreased level of air pollutants and noise caused by road transport, and the decreased level of injuries and deaths caused by road collisions. It is important to note that the increase in active travel may also result in increased road traffic injuries as there will be more people out on the street - it is essential this risk is mitigated by measures to reduce road danger. Option 3 would also reduce community severance (the 'barrier effect' of busy roads) that deters active travel and reduces access to goods such as employment, education, shops, services, and social networks, accessibility to which is important for good mental and physical health. 

cyclists on the roads, and thereby reduce one of the obstacles to mode shift. The standard is also likely to have indirect positive effects on air quality due to replacement of old noncompliant vehicles with new vehicles, which will have lower emissions, thus improving the air quality in the capital. There are also likely to be positive transboundary effects from introducing the Direct Vision Standards as the compliant vehicles will not be limited to operating only in the London area. At the same time increase in cycling mode share and use of PT will lead to active travel increase improving health of people overall. Proposed improved green infrastructure networks can accommodate routes for walking and cycling and would encourage shift to more active modes of transport thus reducing emissions of priority pollutants from transport 
(e.g. PM, NOx, NO2). 

TfL's emissions modelling indicates that the proposals under Option 2 could mean that more than 70% of London's roads will meet NO2 limit values in the early 2020s and could reach 
99% compliance with further action implemented by the national government. 

Whilst London meets air quality limits for particulate matter, London will continue to breach the WHO standards in the short-term before achieving a 47% reduction in PM2.5 
emissions by 2041 compared in 2013. Therefore, significant health impacts will occur across London with the number of aging population. However, the London Environment Strategy is expected to set specific targets for PM2.5 which are aligned with the WHO standards. 

London a fair and inclusive city where every person is able to participate ,  
- Plan to provide for a 
changing population into the future (in particular a more diverse and aging population)?  
reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the population 

Option 1 includes a range of proposals to encourage more cycling and walking. These proposals can lead to a 4% increase in cycling across London and are aimed at different groups including 'employers, schools, community groups, other organisations and individuals'. However, the issue of congestion and crowding on footpaths across Central London is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population. This will result in decreased accessibility for some groups of people who view congestion and overcrowding as a major deterrent for travel. Additionally, Option 1 includes a number of proposals to improve station accessibility. However, Option 1 may also lead to crowding which is seen as the biggest barrier to active transport for disabled customers. 

Option 1 contains limited proposals and policies to make the transport system legible, safe and easy to use by all.  
In addition to the proposals included in Option 1, Option 2 includes enhancements such as the 'Healthy Streets Approach' and increased step-free access across the network, allowing access to all user groups. TfL supplied modelling shows that the proposals to encourage walking and cycling may lead to the same 4% growth in cycling by 2041 as Option 1, but a further 2.3% decline in car mode share. However, similarly to Option 1, the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population. This will result in decreased accessibility for vulnerable people who view congestion and overcrowding as a major deterrent for travel. Additionally, Option 2 may also lead to crowding on PT which is the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers. 

Implementation of the policies and proposals in Option 3 would result in more accessible and better integrated public transport and an increase in active transport facilities for all groups.  
TfL supplied modelling shows that this Option is able to achieve 80% sustainable mode share. It will increase the mode share of walking to 27% (2% higher than Option 1 and 2) and the level accessibility for people across London, including those who are disproportionally impacted by lack of access. The proposals to encourage walking and cycling are likely to lead to the same 4% growth in cycling by 2041 as Option 1 and 2, but a further 11.6% decline in car mode share and a 9% increase in PT 
use is also likely. 

However, there are no proposals that directly address the issue of congestion and overcrowding on footpaths across Central London, which is likely to worsen as a result of the increased population.  
Option 3 presents the same benefits as those listed in Option 2. The additional packages do not have an impact on improving the legibility, safety and ease of use of the transport system.  

- Reduce inequalities for 
integration 
22.To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient and free of prejudice 
those groups who experience more barriers to using public transport than others (e.g. those from lower socio-economic groups and deprived areas, some ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people)? 
 

Issues of overcrowding associated with Option 1 will negatively impact this objective. Although Option 1 contains some proposals for improved accessibility, they will be compromised by rising crowding, which is the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers In addition, overcrowding will likely impair access for those with mobility issues and travelling with heavy luggage or a buggy. This will be further exacerbated by the rising population of the over 
65s by 2041. 

- 
Protect and enhance the 
character, integrity and 
liveability of key streetscapes, including removing barriers to use? 
- 
Improve the use of the urban public realm by 
improving its attractiveness 
and access for all? 

 Design 
23.To create 
attractive, mixed 
use 
neighbourhoods, ensuring new 
buildings and spaces are 
appropriately designed that 
promote and 
enhance existing sense of place 
- Create and maintain a safe 
and attractive public realm 
Option 1 includes a number of proposals to enhance streetscapes and remove barriers to use through the 
'better streets' initiative. These include pedestrianizing 
Oxford Street (one of the world's most polluted streets) and improving town centres. TfL is proactively investing 
in infrastructure and other improvements, and are ensuring that safety and security are considered in the 
planning and design of all services. 
Option 1 also includes strategies that will reduce vehicle speeds across London and enhance road safety. This 
and Easy Read formats and looking at whether additional ways to help commuters better plan their journeys. As part of Option 2, there are plans to ensure that the provision of information and payment platforms are fit for the future. The strong focus on accessibility and inclusivity is also an indication that the plans laid out in Option 2 are future proofed for a more diverse and aging population.   

those presented in Option 2.  
However demand pricing would disproportionately impact those that are low income that need to travel into Central London by car. This may be mitigated by the accessible and well connected public transport networks suggested as part of the strategy. 

In addition to addressing the issues of overcrowding in Option 1, Option 2 contains additional policies and proposals to improve accessibility of the transport network for all Londoners with specific plans to cater to people with accessibility need and the aging population which will positively impact social integration. There are also other services available to help alleviate physical accessibility related impacts including Dial-a-Ride which is a free door-to-door service for disabled and older passengers. Furthermore, all black cabs and some private hire vehicles are wheelchair accessible. The barrier of high fares has been addressed in Option 2 by ensuring that the fares are frozen and all concessions for older and disabled people are protected for the Mayor's term. 

Increased number of river crossings will also remove physical barriers to movement for groups of people living in lower socio-economic group and deprived areas to be better connected thus improving social integration.  
Option 2 introduces the 'Healthy Streets Approach' making the city a more attractive and accessible place in which to live, work and travel.  
Implementation of the policies and proposals in Option 2 
would result in more accessible and better integrated public transport and an increase in active transport facilities. However, similarly to Option 1, despite these efforts, issues of congestion, noise, poor air quality will persist, and car mode share will remain high. 

Option 3 offers the best option to achieve this objective. The proposals included in Option 2, such as the 'Healthy Streets Approach' and a number of the infrastructure projects, will make the city a more attractive and accessible place in which to live, work and travel. 

However, unlike Option 1 or 2, Option 3 contains additional measures that will be able to reduce the key problems that The current data indicates that whilst Londoner's satisfaction with the public realm has remained reasonable over the years more can be done to improve cycle lanes and lighting on streets. Poor quality public realm can discourage active travel and its use. Option 1 includes proposals that will use the principles of accessible for all, 'healthy streets' to improve spaces. It also supports Vision Zero and includes plans to improve the design and layout of street space and the areas near transport gateways such that they are legible, attractive and accessible for all. Public realm will also be improved by planting more trees to reduce urban heat island effect which will allow everyone to use the streets. The support of Vision Zero in Option 1 will contribute positively to the public's perception of safety from traffic. 

Option 1 also contains policies and proposals to improve the safety and security on the public transport network and the on the streets which will encourage more people 

objective; namely, issues of congestion, noise, poor air quality, perceptions of poor safety, and high car mode share. Option 3 is able to effectively address these issues and lead to better health outcomes.    
Option 3 includes further benefits in addition to those listed in Option 2.  Data from 2014 indicated that pedestrian death rates nationally are highest in children and elderly people with vulnerable road users making up 82% of fatalities and 80% of killed or seriously injured casualties (KSI).37 Demand management and pricing will further reduce number of vehicles in London which will have a disproportionate benefit to vulnerable road users.  
In addition to the benefits listed in Option1, Option 2 includes policies to improve the design and layout of street space and the areas near transport gateways such that they are attractive and accessible for all. Policy 9 states that the public transport system should be developed and integrated to offer a good experience for all Londoners. The policy also aims to improve the "whole journey" experience which will be achieved through several proposals. Some of which include working with the relevant stakeholders to improve walking and cycling routes, improving local streets to create environments that promote cycling and walking; improving London's legibility.  
Public realm will also be improved through proposed tree planting which will reduce urban heat island effect, allowing everyone to use the streets.  
Option 2 also includes enhancing and extending bus priorities. The new and existing bus corridors along with the role of demand responsive bus services will provide those in less connected deprived areas with greater accessibility.   
The policy to make better use of street space for people rather than vehicles should have a disproportionate benefit for vulnerable road users (such as children, disabled and elderly) 

fear of crime will remain low on the streets and transport 

Perceived safety from traffic is associated with reduced traffic speed and volume. Additional demand management and pricing introduced in Option 3 will further reduce the number 
                                                     
 

networks. There are also numerous policies to encourage Londoners to walk and cycle more often and that these areas are safe and accessible for all. The proposals include additional pedestrian and cycle bridges and new walking routes.   
of buses, HGVs and lorries on the roads. A reduction in these vehicles will enhance the public's perception of some of these public spaces which will encourage them to walk and cycle. Although there might be a slight rise in traffic speeds to a lower volume of traffic, this is mitigated through the implementation of Vision Zero which incorporates safe speeds. A review on the physical environment and physical activity among children ages 3–18 found that children's participation in physical activity was associated with their parents' perception 
of safety from either crime or traffic.38 
One study found that environmental hazards related to traffic and falls risks can be significant barriers to walking for 
seniors39Therefore the overall reduction 
in traffic volumes, coupled with safe speeds, will increase the perception of 
safety and security and encourage 
people to walk and cycle in these spaces.  
areas of biodiversity interests, i.e. it does not make a measurable contribution towards ensuring Londoners have access to a green space within 250m of where they live. 
Option 2 has a number of policies and proposals to improve natural environment in London: 
Option 3 has the same benefits as Option 2. The additional packages in Option 3 do not provide any further benefits in accessibility.   
- 
Transport maintenance schemes (of existing green space) and improvements should protect existing and provide new green infrastructure in order to result in a net positive impact on biodiversity. 
Option 2 does not address deficiencies of access to open space anywhere in the strategy. It does not give enough focus in improving access to natural environment which is likely to improve the wider built environment and sense of space, appreciate the natural environment and connect people with nature. Therefore, it is likely to have a negative effect against this objective as it does not set out measures to address this issue. 

## Appendix F. Description Of The Tfl Modelling Outputs As The Basis For The Strategic Options

 TfL have carried out a comprehensive programme of transport modelling work to inform the policy development of the draft MTS3. This has included package modelling. In this report: Option 1: Do minimum matches the TfL 
core reference case (package A). Option 2 represents the interventions included in packages A, B, C and D, and Option 3 represents all the interventions plus those included in packages E and F. 

## Option 1: 'Do Minimum'

- 
Travel demand is expected to increase in proportion to the growth in population. TfL forecasts that the demand for travel in London will increase by at least 5 million trips per day, from around 27 million trips 
per day, today, to around 32 million in 2041. Additional trips will mostly be by public transport or active 
travel, with only a small increase in car trips. 
- 
Mode share will change. Most of the additional travel demand will be in the form of more public transport, walking and cycling trips, with the percentage mode share for car travel falling from 36% in 2015 to 30% in 2041. 
- 
There will be strong growth in public transport demand, particularly for rail based modes in Option 1. 
TfL forecasts show a 54% increase in rail and Underground boardings and a 57% increase in rail and 
Underground passenger km from 2015 to 2041 within the GLA. This is resulting from London's growth 
and supported by the extra capacity provided on the networks by interventions such as the Elizabeth 
line.  
- 
Bus patronage growth is forecast to be lower than rail growth in Option 1 with an increase of 18% in 
bus passenger km from 2015 to 2041, reflecting lower capital investment and service enhancements. 
Bus usage is expected to broadly keep pace with population growth in outer London, with bus 
passenger km forecast to fall 16% in central London, and rise 11% in inner London and 25% in outer 
London. The TfL Business Plan proposes a reallocation of bus services from central to inner and outer 
London. Unmitigated, planned changes to the road network in central London would also reduce 
general traffic and bus speeds, and these supply issues are likely to result in reduced bus passenger kilometres in central London and modest growth in inner London. 

- 
Overall road traffic is expected grow modestly, at a rate slower than population growth. Any growth is 
driven by rising population and growth of vans which are an increasing proportion of the total traffic. 
Traffic volumes are expected to fall in central London, with growth concentrated in outer London where there are fewer public transport options and car ownership and use is less constrained. Growth 
here is primarily driven by rising population, as well as growth in van traffic, which will form an increasing proportion of total motorised vehicle traffic.  
- 
Highway capacity for motorised traffic will be lower in the future as a result of a range of changes related to Healthy Streets, including pedestrian priority and public realm schemes, which remove 
capacity for general road traffic. This results in higher delays and lower average vehicle speeds.  
- 
Congestion is expected to continue to increase. Overall vehicle speed is expected to decrease by up 
to 25% in central London from 2015 levels, with average vehicle speeds decreasing across the GLA. 
- 
Given only funded investment, demand for public transport is projected to increase at a faster rate than supply from 2021. From 2015 to 2041, passenger kilometres travelled in severely crowded 
conditions are expected to increase by 50 per cent on the Tube and 90 per cent on National Rail. 

## Option 2: Option 1 With Additional Package Of Enhanced Public Transport Investment

This option aims to maximise public transport to its full potential. Option 2 attempts to encourage the use of public transport instead of car through the construction of large scale public transport investment projects such as Crossrail 2, the Bakerloo Line Extension and HS2. It also includes Overground extensions and frequency uplifts, orbital rail and strategic interchange investment, DLR 
extensions and Tram extensions and frequency uplifts.  

                            32 million trips 
                                             
                                                                                             32 million trips 

 
Public transport improvements have a moderate impact on mode share and lead to falling car 
mode share from 30% in Option 1 to 28% in Option 2. Option 2 also sees at least 1% increase in 
rail, Underground and bus mode shares. 
 
Major public transport investment leads to continued growth in public transport demand between Option 1 and 2. Public transport infrastructure investment in Option 2 increases public transport 
passenger km by 18% in 2041 compared to Option 1. These improvements also lead to 
widespread crowding relief, with a 24% reduction in passenger kilometres travelled at a density 
greater than 4 passengers per square metre across all rail modes in the morning peak.  
 
In outer London and across the GLA, vehicle use is forecast to increase from 2015 to 2041 in 
Option 1, and the investment proposed in Option 2 will reduce some of that increase, but does 
not reduce vehicle use below 2015 levels.  

## Option 3: Option 2 With Additional Demand Management And Road Pricing Levers To Maximise Mode Shift To Sustainable Modes

In addition to the public transport investment in Option 2, Option 3 includes increased parking charges, road space reallocation schemes and road pricing measures, in an attempt to reach the 
80% sustainable (walking, cycling and public transport use) mode share target set out in the MTS vision. 

- 
The significant demand measures included in Option 3 achieve an 80% sustainable mode share.  
Car mode share drops further from 30% in Option 1 to approximately 20% in Option 3, with an 
increase in walking mode share of 2%, rail of 4%, Underground of 2% and bus of 4%. 
- 
Option 3 leads to a significant reduction in GLA vehicle km in 2041. There is an overall reduction 
of approximately 18% with option 3 in 2041 compared to the levels in Option 1, with traffic 
reduced by 7% from 2015 levels. 16% of this reduction from Option 1 comes from the distance 
based charging proposal included in this package. 

## Appendix G. Consultation Draft Mts 3 Emissions Reductions Forecast Mts - Emissions Impact (Tfl, March 2017)

1. NO x and NO 2 - impact of meas ures  in the s hort term 
Measures in the MTS are forecast to deliver reductions in road transport NOx emissions by the early 2020s. 

Figure 1 below shows the estimated reductions of each measure against baseline. It also shows the estimated level of emissions reduction required to support compliance with legal concentration limits of NO2 on 70% and 
99% of London's roads. 

 

2. C O 2 - impact of MTS  on 2040 emis s ions  
Figure 2 below shows total transport CO2 emissions in London in 2013, as well as modelled emissions of 2041 
under (a) the Reference Case (b) Package D, (c) Package F and (d) "Full Strategy" - Package F plus changes in road vehicle technology following the Roadmap to Zero Emission Road Transport described in chapter 3 of the draft MTS. The strategy forecast is based on measures to support road and rail transport in London reaching full zero emission by 2050. 

Assumptions: 

- 
CO2 emissions from grid electricity based on government forecasts 
(https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/energy-and-emissions-projections) 
- 
Aviation emissions based on the 2013 LAEI.  
- 
No expansion of Heathrow airport. 
 
3. P articulate Matter - 2041 
Table 1 shows the impact of the MTS on road transport Particulate Matter emissions under each of the scenarios described above. 

Road 
2041 
transport 
2041 Package 
Reference 
2013 
emissions / 
Case 
tonnes / year 
PM2.5 
873 
584 
582 
462 
460 
PM10 
1348 
1106 
1101 
873 
861 
| 2041 Package    |
|-----------------|
| D               |
|                 |
| F               |
|                 |
| Strategy        |
|                 |

## Appendix H. General List Of 'Core' Monitoring Topics In Scope For Travel In London Reports Mts - Monitoring (Tfl, May 2017)

The Travel in London report, produced annually by TfL, will be the principal means of monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Mayor's Transport Strategy 3. Travel in London reports are intended to serve a range of purposes, offering an authoritative repository of contemporary statistics and trends relating to transport and travel in London, as well as an interpretative commentary designed to assist policy development. The content of these reports will cover a range of 'core' topics and indicators that relate directly to the Strategy outcomes, as well as a variable content that focuses on specific contemporary concerns from year to year. A formal set of quantitative outcome indicators for the revised Strategy is under development, and Travel in London Report 10, due to be published at the end of 2017, will reflect this new framework.  
Bearing in mind this review, the following list sets out what might be regarded as the 'core' indicator/topic set for Travel in London reports. Much of this information will arise from TfL's 'business as usual 'monitoring, although some specific new indicators, with appropriate supporting research, may need to be created to better reflect the outcomes of the revised Strategy. This list is also a sub-set of TfL's wider monitoring activity, which can also be drawn upon as necessary, as well as other monitoring work undertaken by third parties. This element of flexibility is important so that the content of Travel in London reports can adequately reflect and inform contemporary policy issues as they arise. 

## Core Topics For Travel In London Reports Overall Travel

- 
Travel behaviour of London residents and relationship to socio-demographic characteristics. Reflects 
TfL's comprehensive LTDS survey. 
- 
Overall volumes of travel in London. Reflects comprehensive 'operational' data (e.g. counts, Oyster 
CLoCCs, etc.). 
- 
Mode specific demand trends and patterns. Relationship of these to population, economy, etc. 
- 
Connectivity (e.g.  WebCAT), access to jobs/opportunities, public transport accessibility levels (PTAL). 
- 
Overall demographic and economic trends in London. 

## Performance Of The Public Transport Networks

- 
Transport supply by mode (public transport). 
- 
Operational reliability by mode (public transport). 
- 
Relationship between supply and demand (crowding). 
- 
Indicators of public transport quality (customer satisfaction- type indicators). 
- 
Public transport operational safety. 

## Road Network/Healthy Streets

- 
Traffic volumes and trends (comprehensive). 
- 
Comprehensive cycle monitoring programme. 
- 
Pedestrian volumetric and attitudinal monitoring. 
- 
Active travel. 
- 
Healthy Streets indicators. 
- 
Customer satisfaction and behavioural indicators (streets). 
- 
Traffic congestion and journey time reliability. 
- 
Freight volumes and characteristics. 
- 
Road safety 

## Environment, Equalities And Housing

- 
Air quality concentrations (comprehensive) 
- 
Emissions (comprehensive, including CO2) 
- 
Vehicle fleet compositions (Euro standards). 
- 
Indicators of physical accessibility of transport networks. 
- 
Public transport fares - affordability. 
- 
New residential development 'unlocked' by transport infrastructure. 
- 
Wider environment issues - noise, biodiversity and climate change resilience. 

## Appendix I. Abbreviations

 
AEI         Assessment of Economic Impacts 
 
BAME     Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Groups 
 
CAZ        Central Activity Zone 
 
CO2         Carbon Dioxide 
 
CSIA      Community Safety Impact Assessment 
 
DCO       Development Consent Order 
 
DfT         Department for Transport 
 
DLR        Docklands Light Railway 
 
DVS        Direct Vision Standard 
 
EIA         Environmental Impact Assessment 
 
EqIA       Equality Impact Assessment 
 
GHG       Greenhouse Gas 
 
GLA       Greater London Authority 
 
HIA        Health Impact Assessment 
 
HRA       Habitats Regulations Assessment 
 
HUDU    Healthy Urban Design Unit 
 
IIA          Integrated Impact Assessment 
 
KSI         Killed or Seriously Injured 
 
LES        London Environment Strategy 
 
LGBT     Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people 
 
LGV       Large Goods Vehicle 
 
LIPs       Local Implementation Plans 
 
LTS        London Transportation Studies 
 
MPS       Metropolitan Police Service  
 
MTS       Mayor's Transport Strategy 
 
NO2        Nitrogen Dioxide  
 
ODPM    Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 
 
PM10       Particulate Matter (measuring 10µm or less) 


PT          Public Transport 
 
PTAL     Public Transport Accessibility Level 
 
SA          Sustainability Appraisal 
 
SAC        Special Areas of Conservation 
 
SEA        Strategic Environment Assessment 
 
SME        Small and Medium Enterprise 
 
SPA        Special Protection Area 
 
SUDS      Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems 
 
TfL          Transport for London 
 
ULEV       Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle  
 
ULEZ       Ultra-Low Emission Zone 
 
WHO       World Health Organization 
 
ZEC         Zero Emission Capable 

## Appendix J. References

1. Aether (2013) Analysing Air Pollution Exposure in London. Report to Greater London Authority. 
Accessed on 19 May 2016 from: 
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/analysing_air_pollution_exposure_in_london_- _technical_report_-_2013.pdf. 
2. Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.  
3. Davison K, Lawson C. (2006) Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical 
activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. 
2006; 3(1):19). 
4. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2015) data: BEIS statistics 2015. 
5. Disability Safe. Noise. Accessed on 13 April 2017 from: http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/noise.pdf 
6. Environment Agency (2009) Water for life and livelihoods. River Basin Management Plan Thames River 
Basin District. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289937/geth0910bswa-ee.pdf 
7. Environment Agency (2017) Catchment Data Explorer, Thames - Summary River Basin District. 
Accessed on 13 April 2017 from:  http://environment.data.gov.uk/catchmentplanning/RiverBasinDistrict/6/Summary 
8. Greater London Authority (2013) Mayor's Safer Streets for London Plan 
9. Greater London Authority (2015) Mayor's Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Annual Report: 2013-
2014 (June 2015) 
10. Howard R. (2015) Up in the Air How to Solve London's Air Quality Crisis: Part 1. Accessed on 15 June 
2016 from https://www.trustforlondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Up-in-the-Air-London-Air-
Quality.pdf 
11. Jacobs (2017) Proposed changes to the Ultra Low Emission Zone. Update to the 2014/2015 Integrated 
Impact Assessment. 3d April 2017. Accessed on 2 April 2017 from: 
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/environment/air-quality-consultation-phase-2/user_uploads/ulezproposed-changes_iia-updated.pdf 
12. Jarvie, J. (2016) Realising the benefits of Active Travel. 12 April 2016.  
13. Lockett D, Willis A, Edwards N. (2005) Through seniors' eyes: an exploratory qualitative study to identify 
environmental barriers to and facilitators of walking. Can J Nurs Res. 2005 Sep; 37(3):48-65). 
14. London Underground Comprehensive Review of Flood Risk (LUCRFR) project (TfL 2016). 
15. Mayor's Ambient Noise Strategy (2004). 
16. ODPM (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. 
17. Regulation 12 (3) (b) of the 'Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations' 2004. 
18. Royal Geographical Society (2017) The geography of science - Flood in London: A Mission Impossible? 
Accessed on 5 April 2017 from: 
http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+Stage+3+resources/The+geography+of +science/Flood+in+London+A+Mission+Impossible.htm 

19. Telegraph Reporters (2017) Commuters on public transport 'exposed to higher pollution levels than car 
users'. Accessed on 4 April 2017 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/14/commuters-publictransport-exposed-higher-pollution-levels-car/ 
20. The Local Air Quality Network Summary Report 2014 (Environmental Research Group and King's 
College London, 2016) details results of air pollution measurements made on the local air quality network (LAQN) 
21. Therivel, R. (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. 2nd Edition. Earthscan: London. 
22. Transport for London (2012) Perceptions of the travel environment. 
23. Transport for London (2015a) Casualties in Greater London during 2014. Accessed on 25 July 2016 
from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/improving-the-health-of-londoners-transport-action-plan.pdf 
24. Transport for London (2015b) Travel in London Report 8, 2015. 
25. Transport for London (2016a) MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016. 
26. Transport for London (2016b) Travel in London Report 9, 2016. 27. World Health Organisation (2016) Physical activity. Accessed on 26 May 2016 from: 
http://www.who.int/topics/physical_activity/en/ 
28. World Health Organisation (2017) Children's Health and the Environment. WHO Training Package for 
the Health Sector. Accessed on 13 April 2017 from: http://www.who.int/ceh/capacity/noise.pdf