Swishbrook

Ltd
The London Borough of Barnet (Brent Cross Cricklewood)
Compulsory Purchase Orders (Nos 1 & 2) 2015

For Objector 51
(Renata Altmann, Caren Ferster, Swishbrook Ltd)

Plots 262 268

and interests in highway subsoil CPO No 1

Mike Axon
Proof of Evidence
Transport

May 2016
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................3

2 NEEDANDBENEFIT......................................................................................................7

3 COMPOUNDASSUMPTIONS......................................................................................12

4 TRAFFICMODELLING.................................................................................................14

Overview...................................................................................................................14
ModellingAssessment...............................................................................................14

5 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSION...................................................................................21

1
Appendices
AppendixMAA JohnOrchardTechnicalNoteonTrafficModellingWork
AppendixMAB JohnOrchardEmail

2
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 MynameisMikeAxon.IhaveadegreeinCivilEngineeringfromCityUniversity,Iama
FellowoftheCharteredInstitutionofHighwaysandTransportation,andaMemberofthe
TransportPlanningSociety.Ihaveover29yearsexperienceinthedesign,implementation
andassessmentoftransportschemesinthepublicandprivatesectors.

1.2 IamafoundingDirectorofVectos,consultantsintrafficandtransport,andaBuilt
EnvironmentExpert(BEE)atDesignCouncilCABE.PriortothatIwasafoundingDirectorof
SavellBird&Axonfrom1994,andaDirectorofProjectsatTraversMorgan.

1.3 TheevidencewhichIhavepreparedandprovideforthisInquiryistrueandhasbeen
preparedandisgiveninaccordancewiththeguidanceofmyprofessionalinstitutionandI
confirmthattheopinionsexpressedaretrueandprofessionalopinions.

1.4 MyevidenceisonbehalfofAltmann,FersterandSwishbrookLtd,(referredtohereinas
Swishbrook)(theObjector),andinrespectofCPONo1andCPONo2,andthe
compulsorypurchaseoflandatPlots262268tofacilitatejunctionalterationsworksatA5
CricklewoodBroadway/A407CricklewoodLaneJunction(theJunction).

1.5 ThegivenreasonbyBarnetLondonBoroughCouncil(theAcquiringAuthority(AA))for
alterationsattheJunctionistoallowturningmovementstobebetteraccommodated,thus
freeingupadditionaltrafficcapacity.Condition20.10oftheS73approval1prevents
occupationofanypartoftheBrentCrossCricklewood(BXC)developmentsouthoftheA406
priortopracticalcompletionofthealterationsattheJunctiontomitigatethecongestion
impactsoftheproposeddevelopment.

1.6 However,assetoutinthe2009CommitteeReport2ontheBXCdevelopment,thereisa
compromisebetweenprovidingextracapacityfornewtrafficdemand,andrestraining
demand.BydesigntheA407junctionsdonotprovideforthefullforecastdemand,forthe
reason,asthe2009CommitteeReport3states,thatconstrainingdevelopmenttrafficwill
helpprotectadjacentareasfromexcessivecongestion.

1
Inquiry Document C3
2
Inquiry Document C31
3
Inquiry Document C31

3
1.7 Since2009,withtheintroductionoftheNPPF4inMarch2012,therehasbeenanincreasing
expectationinLondonoftravelbehaviourchangeinlightofnetworkconstraints,and
reducedimportancegiveninplanningtotheconvenienceofpeakperiodcommutingdrivers.

1.8 Iexplain:

Thereisnoneedforthisadditionaltrafficcapacity,asaresultoftheBrentCross
CricklewoodschemeorwiderregenerationoftheBrentCrossCricklewoodarea
Thereisnoexpressionofrelevantplanningpolicythatmakesadditionaltrafficcapacity.
inthislocationameaningfulaimorrequirementinthecontextoftheBXC.development
orthewiderregeneration,andtheproposedalterationsdonotsatisfactorilymeetthe
testassetoutinparagraph204ofNPPF5asbeingnecessarytomakethedevelopment
acceptableinplanningtermsorbeingdirectlyrelatedtothedevelopment;most
importantly,atthisstage,wherethecompulsoryacquisitionofmyclientslandis
proposedinordertodeliverthesejunctionworks,thereisnoneedforthemand
consequentlynooverridingpublicinterestintheirprovisiontojustifytheacquisition.
InundertakingthemathematicalmodellingthathasinformedtheAAsdesire,
compoundassumptionshavebeenmade,severelylimitingtherobustnessoftheresults
andthewayinwhichtheycanbeusedastoolstomakeproperjudgementsabout
relativelysmallchangesintrafficdemandorroadgeometry,whichisthecasehere.
Themathematicalmodellinghasmaterialerrorsandincludesunreasonable
assumptions,suchthat,ifproperlyamended,wouldresultinaconclusionthatthe
statedtrafficcapacitybenefitsarenotassignificantasclaimed.

1.9 Suchchangesdonotrepresentsustainabledevelopment.

1.10 MyjudgementisthatthesuccessfulregenerationofBrentCrossCricklewoodisnotreliant
onthejunctionalterationworksproposedatCricklewoodBroadway/CricklewoodLane
Junction.

1.11 IexplainwhyadditionaltrafficcapacityisnotrequiredtodelivertheBrentCrossCricklewood
proposalsorthewiderregeneration,andwhyaimingtoprovideadditionaltrafficcapacityis
notconsistentwiththestrategyfortheBrentCrossCricklewooddevelopmentofpromoting

4
Inquiry Document A8
5
Inquiry Document A8

4
 andencouragingsustainabletravel,andistheantithesisoftheaimsofcurrentnational,
regionalandlocalplanningpolicy,whichlooktopromotesustainabledevelopment.

1.12 Nationalplanningpolicy(NPPF6paragraph32)requiresopportunitiesforsustainable
transportmodestobetakenup,theneedformajortransportinfrastructuretobereduced,
safeaccessforallpeopletobeachievedandthecosteffectivelimitationofsignificant
developmentimpacts,withdevelopmentproposalsonlybeingturnedawaywhenresidual
cumulativeimpactsaresevere.Inacaselikethepresent,whenitisproposedtojustifythe
compulsoryacquisitionofthirdpartylandonthebasisofinfrastructureworks,Iconsider
thattheinterferencewiththirdpartyrightsandotherdisadvantagesreferredtointhe
evidenceofMrBruceFowlerareelementsofthecostwhichmustbeconsidered,aswellas
thefinancialcostofcompensation.

1.13 Idonotconsiderthattheproposedworksarenecessarytopreventsevereresidual
cumulativeimpactsandthereforeIdonotthinkthattheproposedworksarecosteffective.

1.14 Iexplainwhyanyvariationinanyoneofthecompoundassumptionsmadecanvary
significantlythefuturetripforecasts,whichinturnhaveinformedthedesignofthejunction
alterations,followinganoutdatedapproachofpredictandprovideassetoutinthe
SupplementaryPlanningGuidance(SPG)Cricklewood,BrentCrossandWestHendon
RegenerationAreaDevelopmentFramework,December20057.

1.15 Iexplainhowthepracticalbenefitsoftheproposedalterationshavebeenmisreported,and
whatthelikelyeffectsofthealterationswillbeinrealtermsofhighwaycapacity.

1.16 Chapter2addressesneedandthepolicycontext,Chapter3examinesthecompound
assumptionswhichhavebeenmadeintheassessment,andChapter4highlightserrorsinthe
modellingworkwhichhasbeenundertaken.Chapter5summarisesandconcludes.

1.17 Eversheds,thelegalrepresentativesfortheAA,helpfullysuggestedwithoutprejudice
discussionsonthehighwaysissuesraisedinSwishbrooksStatementofCase.Thiswas
agreed,intheinterestsofclarificationandpossiblyagreeingsomecommonground.A
withoutprejudicemeetingtookplaceon28thAprilbetweenVectosrepresentativesand
AecomrepresentativesbutunfortunatelyJohnOrchard,theAAswitnessfromAecom,could

6
Inquiry Document A8
7
Inquiry Document B13

5
notbepresent.Viewswereexchangedwhichdidclarifyandinformtheparties
understandingtosomedegreebuton4MayJohnOrchardsubsequentlyissuedaTechnical
Noteonmodelling(attachedasAppendixMAA)andsuggestedthatheshouldspeakto
Vectos.Vectosofferedtospeakfurtheron5thMayandaconversationtookplace,although
unfortunatelyterminatedwhenmobilesignalwaslost.JohnOrchardsetouthisviewsin
summarylaterintheafternoon(emailattachedasAppendixMAB).Whilstofsomehelpin
understandingonbothsides,thediscussionsdidnotgofarenoughand,asofthedateofthis
proof,onlylimitedinformationhasbeenmadeavailabletoVectos.

6
2 NEEDANDBENEFIT
2.1 IunderstandAECOMspositiontobethattheproposedamendmentstotheJunction,and
theadditionalhighwaycapacitytheywilldeliver,arerequiredbytheAAasPlanning
AuthoritytomaketheBrentCrossCricklewooddevelopmentacceptableintheiropinion.
Therequirementforadditionalhighwaycapacitydatesbackto2005,andtheSPG8which
stated:

ItisimportantthattheproposalswithintheFrameworkdonotworsenconditionson
thelocalhighwaynetworkandthatanyimpactsaremitigated.

2.2 The2009CommitteeReport9clarifiesthepositioninrespectoftheA407junction
improvements,ofwhichthisisone.

Inordertoencourageamoresustainableapproachtotravelintheareathereisa
degreeofrestraintincludedinsomeofthegatewayjunctions(suchasA407)toencourage
greateruseofnoncarmodes.(Refpage63,column3,row7)

Theschemecomprisesacomprehensiverangeofmitigationtoreducethetraffic
impact,includingjunctionimprovementsalongtheA407thatdonotprovideforfulldemand,
whichbyconstrainingdevelopmenttrafficwillhelpprotectadjacentareasfromexcessive
congestion.Therearealsovariouscarparkingmanagementmeasuressetoutintheparking
strategytoencouragemodeshift.(Refpage66,column3,row4)

2.3 InJohnOrchardsevidence(paragraph4.1.1),andfrommyunderstandingofdiscussions
withJohnOrchard,themajordeterminingfactorthatappearstohavebeenappliedbythe
designersinthejudgementaboutwhetherjunctionimprovementsarenecessaryisthatofnil
detrimenttotrafficconvenience.However,thisisnotthewayinwhichthe2009Committee
Report10explainedit.

2.4 ThebasisfortheConditionwasacompromisebetweenprovidingforsomeextracapacity
overtheexistingsituation,butnottoomuchsuchthatmoretrafficwouldbecapableof,or
encouragedto,travelthroughneighbouringareas,tothedetrimentofthoseareas.The

8
Inquiry Document B13
9
Inquiry Document C31
10
Inquiry Document C31

7
 premise,withwhichIagree,isthatbyrestrainingcapacitybelowdemandlevelstherewould
beagreatertendencyforbehaviouralchangeanduseofmoresustainabletravelmodes.

2.5 Driverswillacttominimisetheirinconveniencebymakingothertravelchoices,andso
congestionthatmightbeforecastbyatrafficmodelthatreliesonlyondemandflowswillnot
beassignificantinpractice.Restrainingcapacityisatoolinencouragingsustainableliving.

2.6 TherewasnotechnicalbasisthatIcanfindforchoosingthisbalancebetweennewcapacity
andrestraintin2009,andcertainlynogoodreasoninthecurrentplanningcontextfornot
settingrestraintatthecapacityoftheexistingjunction.

2.7 Thereisnoexpressionofpolicytosupportthisapproach,asIhaveindicatedabovewhen
summarisingNPPF11policyforhighwayissues.Thetestofseverityofresidualimpactisnot
thesameasnildetriment,whichisjustthepreservationofthestatusquowithoutan
assessmentofwhetherthereisscopetoacceptsomechangewithoutleadingtoconditions
whicharesevere.Furthermore,thereisnogoodreasontosupposethattheassumptions
madethatforecasttrafficflowchangewillbemanifestedinreality,andgoodreasonto
supposethatitwillnot,astravellersinLondonconstantlymanagetheiractivitiestominimise
theirinconvenience.

2.8 ThetrendinLondoninrecentyearshasbeenforcongestiontoremainstable(GraphMA112)
inthefaceofpositiveeconomicgrowthandreducingroadcapacity(GraphMA213). DfTdata
showsthatvehiclekilometresinLondonin2014were9.5percentlowerthanin200014.This
fallinroaddemandhasbeenaconsistentfeatureofthelastdecade.InOuterLondontraffic
flowsin2014/15were2.6%lowerthantrafficflowsin2006/715despitesocialandeconomic
growth.

11
Inquiry Document A8
12
TfL, Travel in London Report 4, 2011, Page 99, Figure 4.9
13
TfL, Travel in London, Report 8, 2015, Page 90, Figure 4.6
14
TfL, Travel in London, Report 8, 2015, Page 57
15
TfL, Travel in London, Report 8, 2015, Page 60

8
 GraphMA1ReducedRoadCapacityinLondon

GraphMA2StableTrafficCongestioninLondon

2.9 Oneofthereasonsforbothtrendsisbehaviouralchange.Peopleadapttotheir
environment,actingtominimisetheirinconveniencebyadoptinghabitsandpatternsof
behaviourwhichbestsuittheirlifestyle.

9
2.10 Thelevelofbehaviouralchangeissignificant,andtheshifttowardssustainablemodesof
travel,whichisnowwelldocumented,isexpectedtocontinue,particularlyinLondon,where
physicalinfrastructureimprovementsarealignedwithpeoplesdesiretotravelinamore
sustainableway.

2.11 HumanStreets:TheMayorsVisionforCycling3YearsOn,March2016statesthatcycling
ontheTfLcontrolledmainroadsroseby63percentfrom2008to2014.Intheyear2000,
motoristsenteringcentralLondonduringtheAMpeakoutnumberedcyclistsbymorethan
11to1.By2014,theratiowas1.7to1.Peoplearechoosingtotravelinmoresustainable
ways.

2.12 Thedatademonstratesthereisnotaneedforgeneraladditionalhighwaycapacityin
London.Londonhasbrokenthelinkbetweeneconomicgrowthandtrafficgrowth,itisa
Stage3City(seeGraphMA3).ItisMobility(easeofaccesstofacilitiesbyachoiceofmeans,
includingvirtualtravel,activetravel,publictransport,multioccupancycaruseandsingle
occupancycaruse)thatismoreimportantthanprotectingtheconvenienceofthecarborne
commutingdriver.

2.13 Policynolongerplacespredictandprovideforcommutercardriverconvenienceasahigh
priority,yetthisistheapproachthathasledtotherequirementfortheJunctionandthe
CPO.

GraphMA3CityStages

10
2.14 ThelikelihoodofchangeinMobilityandtravelbehaviourisacknowledgedintheBXCgeneral
assessmentworkwhichinformstheTransportAssessment16.Behaviouralchangeandthe
abilitytoinfluencebehaviourisasubstantialpartofsomeoftheBXCcase.Itdoesnot
appeartohaveinformedtheirapproachtotheJunction,however.

2.15 Inmorebasicmathematicalmodellingterms,theBXCdevelopmentassessmentusesa
DemandModeltoadjusttraveldemandsubjecttotravelconditionsandthelevelofdelayon
thehighwaynetwork.WeunderstandthattheDemandModelgoessomewayto
transferringtripsfromcardrivertoothermodesasdelayandinconvenienceonthehighway
networkincrease,andpeopleseektominimisetheirinconvenience.Thisisanentirely
reasonableconcept,althoughthedetailishighlydependentonbroadassumptions

16
Inquiry Document C19

11
3 COMPOUNDASSUMPTIONS
3.1 Themodellingdevelopment,calibration,validation,tripgeneration,tripdistribution,
demandmodelandfutureyearforecastingassumptionsaresetoutinVolume2,AppendixIII
FKoftheConsolidatedTransportAssessmentAppendices,201317.Thisisalengthy
analysistotalling485pages.

3.2 Judgmentshavebeenmadeinrelationtoanumberofkeyissues,including:

Tripattraction
Tripdistribution
Modesplit
Trafficgrowth
Behaviouralchange

3.3 Itisnotunacceptabletomakejudgementswhenpreparingfutureforecasts,onthebasis
thattheyaresimplyforecastsandnotaprecise,oraccurate,predictionofthefuture
position.However,therecomesapointatwhichtheassessmentisjusttoocoarseto
meaningfullymeasurecertainchanges.Thatisthepositionhere.

3.4 TheJunctionproposalsaresomewhatdistantfromtheBXCdevelopment,andbasedona
forecastwhichcouldvarysignificantlywithchangesinassumptions.Toproposesuchminor
alterationstoajunction,whichwilloffersuchademinimischangeinhighwaycapacity,and
concludethatwithoutthesealterationstheregenerationofthelandcontainedinCPONo1
willnotbeachievedwithouttheuseofcompulsorypurchasepowersmustbe,andis,
incorrect.

3.5 Thefutureyearofassessmentis2026.Theassumptionisthattherewillbeanincreasein
trafficlevelsby2026(whichtheTransportAssessment18statesisconsistentwithLTS19and
TheLondonPlan20).ThisdoesnotaccordwithrecenttrendsinLondon,assetoutinSection
2,ortheaimsandobjectivesofTheLondonPlan21,whichistopromotesustainablegrowth.
Therefore,thisisoneassumptionthatisratherbroad.Toalargeextentinanyevent,thisis

17
Inquiry Document C21
18
Inquiry Document C21
19
London Transportation Studies multi-modal model used to prepare growth forecasts
20
Inquiry Document A18
21
Inquiry Document A18

12
 largelyselfserving,withtraffictakingtheopportunitytofilladditionalcapacityifitis
provided.

3.6 Inaddition,thevolumeofdevelopmenttrafficthisfarfromthedevelopmentmaywellhave
beenoverstated,duetotheconservativeandprobablyunrealisticapproachtakentowards
tripgeneration.AnexampleofthisisincludedinthenoteatthebottomofTable4.1(on
page82)oftheConsolidatedTransportAssessment,MainReport,(Vol1),201322,inrelation
totheParcelForcesite,whichstates:

ThevolumeoftrafficassumedisgreaterthanthatpredictedbytheKeystoneHousingTA
datedApril2007carriedoutbySavellBird&Axonandthereforerepresentsamore
conservativeandrobustapproachtothelikelyleveloftrafficgeneratedbythedevelopment.

3.7 Furthermore,thetripgeneration,whilsttakingaccountofthetriprestrainteffectsofthe
inconvenienceoflimitedparkingatthedevelopment(paragraph4.10ofConsolidated
TransportAssessmentMainReport(Vol.1),2013)23,makesnoallowanceforthechangein
convenienceonthehighwaynetwork,somethingthatisthedrivingfactorbehindthe
disconnectbetweengrowthandtraffic,andoneofthereasonsthatcongestionhas
remainedroughlyconstantdespiteotherchanges.

3.8 Theproposedjunctionalterationsarethereforederivedfromaworstcasetheoretical
trafficscenariothatisunrealisticandunnecessary.

22
Inquiry Document C21
23
Inquiry Document C21

13
4 TRAFFICMODELLING

Overview

4.1 Therearetwolayersofmodellingassessmentwork,strategicmodellinganddetailed
modelling.Myunderstandingisthestrategicmodellingwasusedtoidentifytheoreticalpeak
commuterhourhotspotsontheroadnetwork.Thiswasdefinedasjunctionswhichare
recordingadegreeofsaturationof90%ormore.Degreeofsaturationinthiscaseisthe
ratioofforecasttrafficdemandagainsttheoreticalcapacitywithinthepeakcommuterhour.

4.2 Havingidentifiedthis,thehotspotjunctionswereassessedindetailusingthecomputer
modelLinsig.

4.3 IunderstandfromJohnOrchardthattheaimofanyjunctionamendmentwastoachievenil
detrimentintermsofcommutercardriverconvenience.

4.4 Neitheralimitonpeakhourdegreeofsaturation,oranildetrimentaim,basedoninflexible
trafficdemandassumptions,arereasonableorpolicycomplianttriggersfordeterminingthe
needforroadimprovements.

4.5 Atthetimeofthe2010consenttheonlymodellingavailabletoinformthejudgementsabout
theJunctionwerethestrategicmodel(BrentCrossTM)andthedetailedmodel(Linsig).
Despitebeingsupersededbylatermodellingiterations,AECOMhasconfirmedthatthis
modellingisstillvalidandappropriateintermsofinforminganassessmentaboutthe
appropriatenessoftheproposedamendmentstotheJunctionandtherequirementforCPO.

4.6 IunderstandthattheLinsigmodellingworkistheonlydetailedmodellinginthepublic
domain.AtthetimeofwritingVectoshasrequesteddetailsoftheothermodellingwork
(BSCTM,BXCDDM,andTRANSYT).

ModellingAssessment

4.7 ThescaleoftheproposedalterationworksattheJunctionislimited,andisprimarilyan
increaseinqueuingcapacityof8vehiclesonCricklewoodLane.

4.8 Theeffectoftheproposedalterationshasbeenoverstated.Ithasbeenoverstatedby
assumingthatthetheoretical,and,unfetteredbyinconvenience,trafficcanactuallymakeit
throughthenetworktotheJunction.

14
4.9 Ithasbeenoverstatedbecauseitassumesthattheworksthemselvesprovidemorecapacity
thanitisreasonabletoassume,duetoinconsistenciesinthemodellingwork.

4.10 Theinconsistenciesparticularlyrelatetosaturationflowsandstoragecapacitywithinthe
junction.AecomdefineDoMinimumastheexistinglayout.ItdefinesDoSomethingasthe
2010proposedlayout.TheCPOisbasedonaneedfortheDoSomethinglayoutinthe
contextoftheBXCdevelopment.

4.11 Differentcapacityassumptionshavebeenappliedtothesameunchangedsectionsofthe
Junction.Forthesamestretchofroad,theDoSomethingassumesagreatercapacityfor
trafficthanintheDoMinimum.Themodelissensitivetothesedifferencesinassumption.

4.12 IntheDoMinimumscenariothesaturationflowonCricklewoodBroadway(southbound)is
setat1,700pcu/hour,butintheDoSomethingscenariothesaturationflowincreasesto
2,000pcu/hour.Thereisnoreasonableexplanationastowhythesaturationflowwould
increasegiventhatnoalterationsareproposedtothisarmofthejunction,andno
alterationsareproposedtojunctionsupstreamordownstreamofthisjunction.Increasing
thesaturationflowinthiswayartificiallyincreasesthecapacityofthejunctionbyallowing
themodeltothroughputahighervolumeoftraffic.

4.13 IdonotyethaveasatisfactoryexplanationfromAecomastowhythesechangestothe
saturationflowshadbeenmade.

4.14 IntheDoSomethingscenariothenonblockingstoragecapacityinthecentreofthe
junctionforrightturnershasbeenincreased,from3southbound/4northboundintheDo
Minimumscenarioto5southbound/6northboundintheDoSomethingscenario,
whereas,becausethesouthboundstoplinehasbeenmovedforward,thestoragecapacityis
actuallyreduced.

4.15 IdonotyethaveanexplanationfromAecomastowhythesechangestothenonblocking
storagecapacityhadbeenmade.

4.16 Inaddition,thelayoutinJohnOrchardsevidence(Appendix7.2.3)showsalayoutthatnow
revertsbacktoahookrightturnarrangement(FigureMA3),aspertheexistingarrangement
(FigureMA1),whereastheLinsigmodelmodellednonhookrightturns(Figure MA2).

15
FigureMA1ExistingLayoutoftheJunction

FigureMA2ExtractfromDrawingNo:P/D11870/H/100/1024(the2010consent)

16
 FigureMA3ExtractfromAppendix7.2.3ofJohnOrchardsProof

4.17 TheA5CorridorProposalsarerequiredaspartoftheBXCconsent.Theseproposalswill
extendthebuslanesouthonCricklewoodBroadwaybyapproximately130metres,
terminating25metresshortofthestoplineonCricklewoodBroadway(north)ratherthan
160metresshortofthestopline.Theimpactofthisproposalintermsofjunctioncapacity
hasnotbeenexplainedorallowedforintheLinsigmodel.Thelikelyeffectistoreducethe
capacityofthenetworkandtheJunctionforprivatecarswhilstimprovingpriorityforpublic
transport.

4.18 IhavemodelledtheJunctiononthebasisofconsistentgeometryassumptions,butstillusing
theAecomunfettereddemandflows.TableMA1setsouttheresults.

17
 TableMA1LinsigDegreeofSaturationResultsofDoMinimumandDoSomethingTraffic
FlowScenariosontheDoMinimumJunctionLayout(theexistingjunctionlayout)
Link AMPeak PMPeak SaturdayPeak
DM DS DM DS DM DS
Cricklewood 120.7 124.7 111.2 134.9 106.3 122.7
Broadway
(NW)
Cricklewood 118.4 125.3 111.3 132.8 106.5 124.1
Lane
Cricklewood 115.2 113.1 111.2 133.5 99.2 113.1
Broadway
(SE)
Chichelle 120.9 123.6 112.2 131.4 107.4 125.0
Road
* DM Do Minimum / DS Do Something

4.19 IntheDoMinimumnetwork/DoMinimumflowscasethedemandinthemodelledperiods,
eachofonehour,aregreaterthanthecapacityofthejunction.I.e.,onthebasisofthe
assumptionsmoretraffictriestopassthroughthejunctionthanwillpassthroughthe
junctionevenwithoutBXCdevelopmentandwithoutthejunctionalteration.

4.20 Theconsequenceisthatthejunctionlimitsandcontrolsthetrafficflowintotherestofthe
network(assuminginthefirstplacethatithasnotalreadybeenlimitedbyneighbouring
upstreamjunctions).

4.21 Thisrestraintremains,buttoagreaterdegree,intheDoMinimumnetwork/DoSomething
flowscase.Inprinciple,thisisthefunctionthatthe2009CommitteeReport24expectsof
boththisjunctionanditsneighbouronCricklewoodLaneinanyevent.Therefore,the
differenceisamatterofdegreenotprinciple.

4.22 Facedwiththis,travellerswillundertakeoneofanumberofactions,whichinclude,butare
notexclusiveto:

Waitinginthequeueandincurringextrainconvenience

Changingthetimeoftravel

Changingthemethodormodeoftravel

24
Inquiry Document C31

18
 Changingtheirroute

Changingtheirreasonfortravel

4.23 Ofcoursethisappliestoalltravellers,andnotjustthosethathappentobevisitingBXC
development.Itisreasonabletoassumethattravellerschoosemorethanjustthewaitingin
thequeueoption,andindeedthisiswhattheBXCdevelopmentassumes,andwhatthe
officerwritingthe2009CommitteeReport25expects.Itisalsotheobservedeffectin
London.

4.24 London,includingthispartofNorthLondon,isaplacefraughtwithinconvenienceforcar
drivers,andaplacewherethereisawealthofchoiceintravelandfacility.Thisorderof
magnitudeofdriverinconvenienceisnotasevereresidualimpactinthecontextofthe
NPPF26,andisthereforenotamaterialfactorintheplanningbalanceforthisdevelopment.
AsthereisahighertestforconfirmingaCPO,thenmitigatingthiseffectcannotbeaproper
reasonforconfirmingaCPO.

4.25 TheDoSomethingnetwork/DoSomethingflowsstillshowsatheoreticallygreaterdemand
thancapacity,andsotheperformancecharacteristicsremainasforthefirsttwooptions,
withthedifferencebeingthematterofdegree.

4.26 TheLinsigmodelignorestheeffectofanyjunctionsupstreamordownstreamwhichmay
influencetheoperationofCricklewoodBroadway/CricklewoodLaneJunction.Therefore,
notwithstandingtheinconsistenciesinthemodellingwork,thereisnoevidencethatallor
partoftheadditionaltrafficdemandforecastcrudelybytheassessmentmayactuallyarrive
atthejunctiontobenefitfromwhateveradditionalcapacitycanbegleaned.Itwouldbeheld
atadjoiningjunctionsonthenetworkwhicharenotbeingamendedtoaccommodatean
increaseintrafficdemand.

4.27 Thejunctionsupstreamanddownstreamofthejunction,andthesurroundinghighway
network,metertheflowoftraffictoCricklewoodBroadway/CricklewoodLaneJunction.
GiventhatnoimprovementsareproposedonsixadditionaljunctionsonCricklewood
BroadwaybetweenCricklewoodLaneandBrentCross,itisnotunreasonabletoassumethat
thevolumeoftrafficarrivingatCricklewoodBroadway/CricklewoodLaneJunctionwill

25
Inquiry Document C31
26
Inquiry Document A8

19
 remainlargelyunchanged,orbeaffectedinotherways,particularlyinlightofother
pressuresandtemptationsonMobility.

4.28 Theconstraintatadjoiningjunctionsmayexplaininpartwhytheactualchangeintraffic
flowsattheJunctionbetweentheDoMinimumandDoSomethingscenariosintheAMand
Saturdaypeaksisminor,reducingfrom2,595pcusto2,583pcusintheAMpeakand
increasingfrom2,306pcusto2,426pcusintheSaturdaypeak.

4.29 OnthehighwaynetworktheweekdayAMpeakhourisdefinedbyAecomastheaverage
hourbetween07:0010:00.TheweekdayPMpeakhouristheaveragehourbetween16:00
19:00.TheSaturdaypeakhouris14:0015:00.

4.30 Alloftheassessmentworkundertaken,andsothejudgementsabouttheneedfor
improvementstospaceandplaceinthisarea,arebasedontraffic,andtrafficduringthese
peakhourcommuterperiods(seeFigureMA4).Inisolation,asthisis,itisanoutdated
methodfordeterminingchanges,andunsupportedbysocialandsustainabilityplanning
policy.

4.31 Demolishingbuildingsandincreasingthedominanceofvehiclesforthebenefitofshortpeak
periodsonthehighwaynetworktotheoveralldetrimentofthepermanentstreetsceneis
notmyunderstandingofthecorrectapproachtoMobilityandregeneration.

20
5 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSION
5.1 TherationaleforalterationstotheJunctionwassetoutatleastasfarbackas2005,when
theapproachtotransport,mobilityandtrafficwasnotasadvancedasitisnow.Atthattime
itwasmorefocussedontrafficimpactratherthanmobilityandaccesstofacilitiesbya
choiceofmeansoftransport.

5.2 TherationaleforalterationstotheJunctionare,accordingtoJohnOrchardofAecom,the
needtoshownildetrimentatthejunctionintermsofpeakperiodcommuterconvenienceas
aresultoftheBrentCrossCricklewood(BXC)development.

5.3 Thisisnotthoughconsistentwiththerationalereportedinthe2009CommitteeReport27,
wherethepurposeincludestoconstraindevelopmenttraffictohelpprotectadjacentareas
fromexcessivecongestion,andtoencourageamoresustainableapproachtotraveland
greateruseofnoncarmodes.

5.4 Thedecisionabouttheneedforthejunctionalterationsappearstobepredicatedona
supposedneedtoaccommodateforecastBXCdevelopmenttrafficwithnochangeindriver
convenience.I.e.,nildetriment.Ontheotherhand,theassessmentsunderstandandexpect
changeintravelbehaviour,withmoresustainablemovementoccurringiftrafficcapacityat
junctions,includingthisone,isconstrained.

5.5 Arequirementforthejunctionalterationswasestablishedin2010withtheBXC
developmentoutlineconsent.Thiswastakenforwardintothe2013S73consent28.

5.6 TheNPPF29clarifiedtransportpolicyin2012,posttheBXCdevelopmentoutlineconsent,
settingoutthatthetriggerforincludingtransporteffectsintheplanningbalanceassevere
residualimpact.Ifresidualimpactisnotsevere,thentheresidualimpactisnotadecisive
matterintheplanningbalance.

5.7 Thereisnocurrentexpressionofpolicythatestablishesnildetrimenttopeakperiodcar
commuterconvenienceasaplanningmatterofsignificantweight.Therefore,tosetthisasa

27
Inquiry Document C31
28
Inquiry Document C3
29
Inquiry Document A8

21
 trigger,ashasbeenperpetuatedintothisCPOfromthe2005and2010considerations,for
determiningtheneedforhighwaysworks,overallothermatters,iswrong.

5.8 AsthereisnodemonstrableneedfortheJunctionalterations,thenitisalsowrongtouse
thenildetrimenttriggerasthereasonforcompulsorilyacquiringlandtoenablesuch
alteration.ThisisparticularlysowhentheCPObalanceincludesthesubstantialsocialcostin
forciblyacquiringland.

5.9 TheJunctionalterationsarenotsignificantintheNorthLondontravelcontext.Thechange
intrafficcapacityasaresultofthealterationsisdeminimisinthecontextofLondontravel.
ThejunctionisremotefromtheBXCdevelopmentandthealterationswillnotmakea
meaningfuldifferencetolocalorregionalmobility,wherethatmeansthesocialinclusiveness
ofaccesstofacilitiesbyachoiceofmeansoftransport.

5.10 TheBXCdevelopmentcasereliesuponbehaviouralchangeasameansofdeliveringaccessto
thedevelopmentfortheforecastdemand.Thatprincipleissound.Itreliesuponpeople
actingtominimisetheirinconveniencebymakingchoicestouseforinstanceactivetravel
andpublictransportinfavourofcaruse,becausethatcaruseisrelativelylessconvenient.

5.11 ThisisthesamephenomenonthatwillanddoesoccurthroughoutLondon.Theevidenceis
thatcongestionhasremainedroughlythesameinLondon,despitechangesinroadcapacity
andincreasingeconomicandsocialgrowth.Whereroadspacehasbeenreduced,congestion
hasremainedthesame.

5.12 Thereisnoreasontosupposethatthisareaisabnormalinthatrespect.Increasing
inconveniencefordriverswillresultinavariationinthecomplexdecisionmakingthat
travellersmakeaspeopleacttominimisetheirinconvenience.Theresultwillbethatactual
trafficflowswillnotbeashighasthetheoreticalmathematicaldemandsforecast.Thisis
whattheauthorofthe2009CommitteeReport30reliesuponinusingtheCricklewoodLane
junctionsasmethodsfortrafficflowrestraint.

5.13 Evenifrestraintwerenottooccuronthenetworkandallofthedemandtrafficwereto
manifestitselfatthisjunction,theextrainconveniencetocommutingdriversisnotso
significant,andthematternotsufficientlyimportant,towarrantajudgementthatthe
impactissevere.Therefore,inthemodernplanningcontext,itisnotamatterof

30
Inquiry Document C31

22
 consequenceintheplanninground,andthereforenotareasontocompulsorilypurchase
land.

5.14 Therefore,Iconcludethatthereisnoplanningreasonofsufficientsubstancetobalance
against,andoutweigh,thecostsanddisbenefitsofcreatinganalteredandbiggerroad
junctionattheCricklewoodBroadway/CricklewoodLanejunction.Asthereisnogood
planningreasontosupportsuchascheme,IconcludethatthehigherCPOtestofpublic
benefitisnotmetbytransportconsiderations,andthatthetransportcaseisthereforenot
sufficientreasonforcompulsorypurchaseoftheland.

23
APPENDIXA
 AECOM 020 7798 5000 tel
\
6-8 Greencoat Place
London
SW1P 1PL
www.aecom.com

Technical note

To Vectos Ref 60493688-TP-RPT-099

CC

Subject Need for the A5/A407 Junction Improvements

From John Orchard/Tom Allen

Date May 2016

Introduction
This technical noteprovides further clarification of AECOMs approach to modelling through the
various stages of design development at the A5 Cricklewood Broadway/A407 Cricklewood Lane.
This note has been prepared in response to queries raised by Vectos (transport consultants), who
are representing the interests of Swishbrook. This note should be read in conjunction with the Proof
of Evidence for the Transport Infrastructure.
Use of BXC TM
It is confirmed that the strategic1 transport model which is termed the Brent Cross Cricklewood
Transport Model (BXC TM) has been used for the preparation of all planning related documents to
date. The BXC TM is a multi-modal model and remains a robust tool to forecast the future transport
impacts of the Brent Cross Cricklewood Development on both the highway network and the public
transport network.
The traffic flow forecasts from the BXC TM were input into a detailed2 traffic model of the A5/A407
junction. A LinSig model was developed at the time of the planning applications and used to assess
the effects of the increased traffic on junction performance. Then any refinement of the junction
layout were input back into the BXC TM and the iterations between detailed and strategic models
were repeated until a satisfactory convergence was achieved. The output from this analysis is
contained with the appendices of the S 73 Consolidated Transport Assessment. The analysis shows
that in the Do Something the improved A5/A407 Junction performs better (in terms of delay) than
the Do Minimum situation. Modelling evidence from this assessment led to detailed planning
consent being granted in respect of this junction in 2010 and this remained unchanged in the S73
Permission.
Overview of DDM modelling and hierarchical approach
Now the project has moved into an implementation stage a further multi-modal transport model
termed the Brent Cross Cricklewood Detailed Design Model (BXC DDM) has been developed for
informing the detailed design of the necessary highway improvements .This resulted from a
requirement of TfL to use their new North London Highway Assignment Model ( NoLHAM) and the
latest version of the TfL Railplan model ( Version 6) as they wished to assess the detailed designs
on a common basis with all other highway improvements within the London road network when
providing their formal Technical Approvals.

1
Strategic in this instance refers to a SATURN traffic model
2
Detailed in this instance refers to traffic models developed in either TRANSYT or LinSig
The BXC DDM forms part of a hierarchy of transport models that have been used in order to verify
and develop detailed designs for the transport infrastructure improvements required to mitigate
the forecast people movements arising from the Brent Cross Cricklewood development.
A base year cordon area model based on TfLs North London highway assignment model (with a
base year updated from 2009 to 2012), together with TfLs public transport model (Railplan V6 )
represent the detailed design model (BXC DDM). The model has been calibrated and validated in line
with TfL - Group Plannings highway assignment model guidelines. The local model validation report
(LMVR) meets the requirements of both TfL and the LB Barnet. Sign off of the LMVR, in simple terms,
means that the BXC DDM robustly models traffic in the area of influence, such that when network
and demand changes are made to reflect the effect of the development, the model can robustly
forecast the effect of traffic reassignment.
LTS is the London Transportation Studies model that TfL use as their standard transport
forecasting tool. LTS has been used to inform future year demand matrices used in the BXC DDM
for both with and without development scenarios. Future year scenarios for phase 1 (2021) and End-
State (2031) have been developed for weekday AM (0800-0900), PM (1700-1800) and Saturday
(13:00-14:00) peak hours. Phase 1 is when the majority of the proposed transport infrastructure is to
be implemented and End-State is when all remaining development and infrastructure is scheduled
to have been completed.
A process has been agreed with TfL Network Performance whereby a 3 hour set of traffic demand
(for each time period) is output from BXC DDM to inform the VISSIM micro simulation model.
Modelling a longer period in VISSIM ensures that the cumulative effect of traffic build-up is
appropriately modelled. VISSIM (and the BXC DDM) rely on optimised traffic signal timings
generated by the local area models developed in TRANSYT and LinSig.
Detailed traffic models developed in TRANSYT and LinSig have enabled rigorous testing of the S73
transport infrastructure proposals. There is a good level of agreement in the level of mitigation
required between assessments using the BXC DDM and the previous assessments using the BXC
TM strategic model.
The BXC DDM has a significantly increased level of detail of both existing and forecast traffic
movements on the local roads within the study area by means of a greater level of zonal
disaggregation. This greater level of detail on local roads has been made possible by use of
NoLHAM when preparing the BXC DDM. Therefore, the opportunity has been taken to use BXC DDM
to examine any impacts on the local roads within the study area of the A5 Corridor Study.

TRANSYT model of A5/A407 junction

Through AECOMs discussions with TfL it was agreed that a TRANSYT model should be prepared to
test the effect of the development proposals on the highway network, all in accordance with TfLs
model audit process (MAP).
Traffic surveys were undertaken in 2013 to inform the calibration and validation of a base year
model. The A5/A407 junction is located in a UTC group that includes adjacent signalised junctions
and pelican crossings. TfL approved AECOMs base year models in 2014 (MAP stage 3) thereby
providing a sound basis to test the effect of the development on the road network. The base year
TRANSYT model was edited to include the consented scheme proposals and re-run with demand
output from the BXC DDM. The results from this analysis have been reported in the A5 Corridor
Study. It is anticipated that further refinements will be made to the model as work continues in
collaboration with TfL to achieve MAP stage 5 sign-off.
Where the method of control for junctions differs from existing, TfL have undertaken an audit of
safety critical timings. These timings have been updated (where necessary) in each of the detailed
traffic models. The development of the Do Something TRANSYT model has been undertaken in
collaboration with TfL and has been audited by Capita (on behalf of LB Barnet).
The modelling output (as shown in the A5 Corridor Study) shows that the improved A5/A407
junction will operate satisfactorily in the Do Something scenario. The junction analysis shows that
the minimum level of junction resilience is achieved, indicating that the capacity improvements at
this junction are necessary to achieve satisfactory performance following the completion of the
BXC Development.
Conclusion
The traffic modelling using the BXC TM and the Linsig models that supported both the 2010
Permission and the S 73 Permission demonstrated the level of mitigation that was necessary at the
A5/A407 junction. This modelling showed that with the proposed improvement of this junction then
additional capacity would be provided that significantly improves the operation of this junction in
the with development scenario.
Now the project has moved into implementation stage, further traffic modelling has been
undertaken using TfL latest strategic models, with detailed traffic models developed in accordance
with TfLs MAP requirements. Analysis from these latest traffic models corroborates previous
analysis and provides a robust basis to support the published CPO 1 Plans and Schedules.

TA/JSO/04.05.16
 APPENDIXB

Clara Evans

Subject: FW: BXC - A5/A407 Junction

From:Orchard,John[mailto:john.orchard@aecom.com]
Sent:05May201617:55
To:IanSouthwell<Ian.Southwell@vectos.co.uk>
Cc:MikeAxon<Mike.Axon@vectos.co.uk>
Subject:BXCA5/A407Junction

Ian,

IamverysorrythelinewentdeadonmetodayforsomereasonwhileIthoughtthatIwasstilltalkingtoyou,and
asIexplainedIhadsomeonewaitingformeat3pm.

IprovidedthecommentsandTechnicalNote,plusmyexplanationstodaytoassistyouroverallunderstandingof
whereweareandhowwearrivedattheformofhighwayproposalsthathavefullplanningconsent.

However,pleasehavedueregardthatthis is not a planning inquiry. The various transport assessments have been
necessarily rigorous and have been fully audited by both TfL and LB Barnet. The currently proposed highway
layout at the A5/A407 Junction layout was consulted on in 2008/2009 as part of the Planning Application which
resulted in a detailed planning permission in 2010. The S 73 Permission followed further assessments
and consultations and did not change that situation.

The CPO inquiry is not an opportunity to open up the reasons for the planning permission. The need for the
improvement of this Junction is long established as I had explained earlier today, and the consequential need for
the land to facilitate those works follows the S 73 Permission.

I hope all I have provided assists you in your considerations going forward.

Kind regards
John

John Orchard BSc, C Eng, MICE, MCIHT, MCIArb

Director,

Direct: +44 (0) 1256 310333 Mobile: +44 (0) 7770 834579
john.orchard@aecom.com

AECOM
Scott House, Alencon Link, Basingstoke, Hants, RG21 7PP, United Kingdom
01256 310200
www.aecom.com

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you
should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments or copies.

From: Ian Southwell [mailto:Ian.Southwell@vectos.co.uk]

Sent: 05 May 2016 16:25
To: Orchard, John
1
Cc: Mike Axon
Subject: Con Call

John,
Thankyouforyourtimeearlierthisafternoon.
Unfortunatelywewerecutoffbeforewefinishedthecall.
Therewerestillafewpointswewantedtorunthroughdoyouhaveanytimelatertodaytofinishthecall?
Ian

IanSouthwell
AssociateDirector

02920720865(T)07825792830(M)
Ian.Southwell@vectos.co.uk

10thFloorHelmontHouse,ChurchillWay,Cardiff,CF102HE

RegisteredAddress:Vectos(South)Limited,NetworkBuilding,97TottenhamCourtRoad,LondonW1T4TP.CompanyNo.7591661
Thisemailtransmissionisstrictlyconfidentialandintendedsolelyfortheaddressee.Itmaycontainprivilegedandconfidentialinformationandifyouarenottheintended
recipient,youmustnotcopy,distributeortakeanyactioninrelianceuponit.Ifyouhavereceivedthisemailinerror,pleasenotifythesenderorenquiries@vectos.co.uk
anddeletetheemailtransmission(includinganyattachments)immediately.