THE JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION IMPACT STUDY:
MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNT
Peter Jones, Tim Eyers
University of Westminster
Julia Bray, Neil Georgeson
Transport for London
Tim Powell, Jon Paris, Rob Lane
JLEIS Consultants
1
INTRODUCTION
The Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) started operations in the autumn of 1999
running from Green Park to Stratford and was the first significant addition to
the London Underground network since the completion of the original Jubilee
Line 20 years earlier (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Route of the Jubilee Line Extension
The primary aim of the JLE was to assist in the regeneration of Docklands.
This was to be achieved by improving accessibility to the area, overcoming
the capacity restraints of the Docklands Light Rail System (DLR) and, in terms
of image, putting the area firmly on London’s rail network.
A number of more specific benefits were anticipated. These included: four
additional river crossings (thereby helping to reduce the barrier of the River
© Association for European Transport 2004
Thames); improving access to inner city areas, unlocking one of Europe’s
largest potential development areas; attracting inward investment; expanding
London’s commercial centre; reducing unemployment; re-invigorating local
communities and eliminating derelict wastelands.
Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport funded a study
starting in 1997 to measure the impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension. The
study was co-ordinated by the University of Westminster, which provided an
independent assessment of the study findings. The main aims set for the
study were:
1. To understand how the extension has affected London; and
2. To improve appraisal and forecasting techniques.
In addition to the main JLE Impact Study, TfL commissioned Colin Buchanan
& Partners (CBP, 2004) to estimate the benefit/cost ratio of the JLE (using
actual costs) and the scheme’s contribution to increasing national GDP. Also,
to complement work on the JLE’s effect on the property market, Jones Lang
LaSalle were commissioned to estimate the uplift in land and property values
around Canary Wharf and Southwark stations due to the JLE (JLEISU, 2004a,
Working Paper No. 57).
This paper first describes the methodology adopted for the study, before
assessing the impacts of the JLE under four broad categories:
•
•
•
•
Transport impacts and accessibility changes;
Residential and commercial development, including impacts on land value;
Employment and impacts on the economy; and
Impacts on residents and their travel patterns.
Finally lessons learnt and the main conclusions of the study are discussed.
This paper is based on the findings published in the Final Summary Report
that synthesises findings from the component repeat studies (JLEISU, 2004b).
2
IMPACT STUDY METHODOLOGY
Considerable effort was devoted to developing a comprehensive and robust
assessment methodology, as many previous impact studies of major transport
investments had proved largely inconclusive (JLEISU, 1997, Working paper
No.4). An extensive literature review was carried out, to see what lessons
could be learnt from previous studies.
The main stages of the impact study comprised:
•
•
The scoping of the ‘dimensions of change’, in terms of the full range of
expected impacts, the potential geographical sphere of influence and the
time scale over which major impacts might occur;
The identification of ‘indicators of change’ against which impacts could be
measured over time;
© Association for European Transport 2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying appropriate data sources, and specifying new survey
requirements where gaps were identified in existing data sources;
Carrying out additional ‘before’ surveys;
Estimating a ‘baseline scenario’ from existing and new survey data,
representing likely future conditions without the JLE;
Carrying out ‘after’ surveys, timed to coincide with immediate, mid and
longer term (not yet undertaken) impacts;
Analysing ‘after’ data against the ‘baseline’, to identity instances where
differences have occurred and using various quantitative and qualitative
data sources to attribute cause and effect, taking into account other major
developments in the corridor (e.g. DLR Extension to Lewisham);
Developing an assessment framework for summarising impacts;
Some of the novel features of the methodology included:
•
•
•
Analysis at station catchment (c. 1km radius) and JLE Corridor levels;
Use of ‘reference’ rather than ‘control’ areas;
Beginning measurement of change several years in advance of the
opening of the JLE.
Impact studies have traditionally identified ‘control’ areas (i.e. areas as similar
as possible in character to the JLE station catchment areas), in order to
remove the effects of extraneous factors from the comparisons of ‘before’ and
‘after’ data. It proved impractical to find comparable local areas, and so the
concept of the ‘reference’ area was developed. This is more general in extent
than a control area, and may differ according to the indicator under
investigation. It represents an area of London that is likely to be subject to
similar pressures to those experienced by the relevant part of the JLE
Corridor. For example, the ‘Inner East London area’ has been used as the
reference area for unemployment rates along most of the Corridor, and the
‘Central London Fringe area’ has been used as the reference area for
property pressures affecting the Isle of Dogs.
In order to fully explore the impacts of the JLE, eleven subject-based studies
were commissioned and six surveys conducted before and after opening.
3
3.1
TRANSPORT IMPACTS AND ACCESSIBILITY
Connectivity and faster journey times
The Jubilee Line provides interchange opportunities with all the other
Underground lines (Figure 2) and with the DLR. It directly serves two main
line stations, Waterloo, and London Bridge. The JLE also connects with the
national railway system at Stratford, Canning Town and West Ham. New bus
stations were constructed at Canada Water, North Greenwich, Canning Town
and Stratford.
The JLE has a scheduled service of 24 trains per hour eastbound and 20
trains per hour westbound in the peak, and a headway of 3-4 minutes off
peak. The extension offers wheelchair access at all stations.
© Association for European Transport 2004
Figure 2: Underground and National Rail Interchange Opportunities
3.2
Increased Capacity
The JLE has increased capacity and reduced crowding levels by providing
alternative routes to users of the:
•
•
•
•
•
Central Line between Stratford and Bond Street;
District Line between West Ham and Westminster;
Hammersmith and City Line between West Ham and Baker Street;
Bakerloo Line between Waterloo and Baker Street; and
DLR between Stratford and Canary Wharf, and between Canary Wharf
and Central London.
With the introduction of the JLE, the maximum number of people that could be
carried from East London to Central London by the Underground and DLR
increased by 27.5%, from 35,000 to 44,650 passengers per hour (planning
standard capacity). The increase in capacity was even greater from central
London to the Isle of Dogs, with the planning standard capacity of the JLE and
DLR increasing by 668%, from 1,730 to 13,300 passengers per hour.
Due to the pace of development along the JLE, and in particular on the Isle of
Dogs, a 46% increase in capacity by 2010 (compared to pre May 2004 levels)
is planned. This will be delivered by the addition of a seventh car to the
existing train fleet and increasing train frequency from 24 to 30 trains per hour
in the peak hours.
3.3
Transport Demand
The JLE carries over 158,000 passengers per day on the busiest section of
line between Waterloo and Southwark, and more than 137,000 passengers
per day over the section between Bermondsey and Canada Water.
The improvement in network performance resulted in existing Underground,
National Rail and DLR users in 2000 saving a total of 14.4 million hours per
year.
Users of the JLE were asked how they would have travelled (to the same
destination) before the JLE opened. The majority (54%) would have used
alternative Underground lines as their main mode; 14% previously used
National Rail services as their main mode; 21% used the DLR, 7% bus and
2% private car. Very few JLE trips replaced previous walk/cycle trips. It is
© Association for European Transport 2004
estimated that in 2000 at least 3,273 person trips per day were removed from
the road network.
3.4
Transport Accessibility
Changes in accessibility between different areas arising from the operation of
the JLE have been estimated by comparing the 2001 public transport network
with the JLE (including all rail and bus services) against the equivalent
network without the JLE.
Figure 3 provides an example of a time plot for North Greenwich, showing the
areas of London that can be reached within 60 minutes. This station benefits
most from the improved accessibility afforded by the JLE. Without the JLE
most areas of West London were more than 60 minutes away by public
transport; many of these are now generally within 60 minutes of North
Greenwich, and areas formally at the edge of the 60-minute envelope are now
within 30-40 minutes of the station.
Figure 3: Improvements in Accessibility at North Greenwich from the JLE.
Figure 4 presents information on access to population in a different way,
showing the numbers of people in London accessible from each station within
different time bands, from 20 minutes to 60 minutes, with and without the JLE.
It can be seen that the JLE substantially increases the accessibility of North
Greenwich, Canada Water and Bermondsey and, to a lesser extent, Canning
Town and Southwark. For example, the population within 40 minutes of North
© Association for European Transport 2004
Greenwich station increases by 1,348,000 from 182,000 to 1,530,000; this is a
741% increase. The increase at Canada Water is 1,374,000 (275%) and at
Bermondsey 1,144,000 (218%).
Figure 4: Population within Different Journey Time Bands from Selected JLE Stations
Resident population within journey times of JLE stations.
7000
With the JLE
6000
Without the JLE
5000
Pop
x1,000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Westminster
Waterloo
Southwark
London
Bridge
Bermondsey
Canada
Water
Isle of Dogs
North
Greenwich
Canning
Town
West Ham
Stratford
Catchment Area and time bands (20, 30, 40 & 60 minutes).
4
4.1
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Planning Policies
The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was established in
1981 and developed its own policies for the regeneration of Docklands. In the
early days of the Corporation, relatively low-density development was
permitted, but this was probably due to the lack of demand in a depressed
area with resultant low land values. The LDDC's more flexible planning
policies, together with tax advantages, resulted in commercial and residential
development in an inner city area in advance of similar areas of London. The
LDDC's powers were progressively transferred to London Boroughs, by 1998.
Local policies are set out in the Boroughs’ Unitary Development Plans
(UDPs). A review of those in force during the 1990’s found that there was
general acceptance of the potential benefit of the JLE as a catalyst for change
and development, and the need to take account of the quality and proximity of
public transport when considering the location of major new development was
recognised at the strategic level. However, this did not normally lead to any
revised requirements affecting the pattern, form or scale of development in
the areas around the stations.
© Association for European Transport 2004
4.2
Residential development
Analysis of planning application data (from the London Development
Monitoring System) shows more interest in residential development in the
core JLE catchments, CORA, following authorisation of the JLE, than in the
Inner East London Reference Area (Figure 5). In absolute terms, the rate of
residential dwelling construction in the JLE corridor increased from under
1,000 units per annum in the three years from 1991 to 1994 to 2,200 units per
annum over the seven-year period 1994 to 2000. The proportion of residential
units built in the Inner East London Area (IELA) that was in CORA doubled
over these two time periods.
The extent to which this can be attributed to the JLE is complicated by two
factors:
•
•
Fluctuations in the development market mean that an upturn in
development applications would have been expected after 1993 in any
case;
The JLE catchment areas contain a substantial proportion of the
developable land in East London, and indeed the JLE alignment was
decided in large part on the basis that it would open up large areas of such
land for development.
Figure 5: CORA and the boroughs of the Inner East London Area
The higher rates of residential applications and development in CORA
through the second half of the 1990’s could be associated with a ‘critical
mass’ of development being achieved, which then generates sufficient
© Association for European Transport 2004
confidence in locations for increased levels of development interest.
Overcoming a negative image of an area can take several years, but the JLE
may have helped in reducing the time required to bring about developer
interest.
Overall, the increase in relative planning applications is indicative of the
enabling or encouraging impact of the accessibility afforded by the JLE.
4.3
Commercial development
Major commercial developments are usually longer in the formation stage due
to their high costs and the difficulty of phasing. This is particularly the case
when there is no established market. In the case of the JLE, there have to
date been no major commercial developments in the JLE Corridor, other than
at Canary Wharf Estate. This is, however, almost certainly a matter of timing,
as applications currently in the pipeline for commercial schemes will result in a
very substantial amount of development. Three of the largest proposals are
described below:
•
Canary Wharf. Canary Wharf Estate was already well established prior to
the JLE and is one of the largest commercial developments in the UK.
However, the capacity of the transport system was a limiting factor in its
development. In 1991 the estate comprised 502,000 sq.m (5.4 million
sq.ft); this had increased to 1.5 million sq.m (16.6 million sq.ft) in 2003.
The Estate’s current developments will take the total to 1.9 million sq.m
(20 million sq.ft) in the foreseeable future, while further possible
development will take the Estate to 2.4 million sq.m (26 million sq.ft). The
JLE has increased capacity thereby enabling an additional 12 million sq.ft
and a type, scale and density of development not possible without it.
•
North Greenwich. Following the closure of the Millennium Dome at the
end of 2000 (which would not have been located there without the JLE),
plans have been approved for a 26,000-seat sports arena in the Dome and
a mixed-use scheme, including 340,000 sq.m (3.65 m sq.ft) of offices with
the potential to accommodate 14,000 employees. The Masterplan also
includes 33,000 sq.m (355,000 sq.ft) of retail, over 10,000 new homes, a
school and a hotel. It would appear that developers now have confidence
in the peninsular, which was largely inaccessible prior to the construction
of the JLE.
•
Stratford. Plans for former industrial and railway lands around the JLE
and Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) stations include 465,000 sq.m (5
million sq.ft) of office space, 150,000 sq.m of retail space (1.6 million sq.ft)
and 4,500 residential units. Whilst most of this development can be
ascribed to the CTRL, it can be argued that the JLE was influential in
securing the CTRL station at Stratford and is, therefore, a contributory
factor to securing the development. It is unlikely that the scale of
development would be achieved without the JLE. Also the area around
Stratford is central to London’s bid for the 2012 Olympic games.
© Association for European Transport 2004
4.4
Impact of the JLE on Land Value
Jones Lang LaSalle were commissioned to identify the impact of the JLE on
increasing land values around two stations, Canary Wharf and Southwark. For
the purposes of the study it was assumed that the majority of any uplift in
value would occur within 500m of stations for commercial uses and 750m for
residential uses. The two stations were compared against the performance of
residential, commercial, retail and industrial sectors in reference areas.
There is a high variance around the estimates, but at Southwark it was
estimated that the uplift in land value due to the JLE is in the region of £800m,
and at Canary Wharf in the region of £2bn.
5
5.1
EMPLOYMENT AND IMPACTS ON THE ECONOMY
Impact on employment
A survey of employers in the JLE Corridor showed that there was a general
perception that the JLE has provided better integration into the regional railbased transport network, and so enabled firms to recruit from a wider, South
East England labour market. The JLE is also perceived to have helped
change the image of the areas through which it passes, making it easier to
recruit high calibre staff.
Table 1 considers what might have been the likely pattern of employment in
the Corridor had the JLE not been built, with employment growing at the same
sectoral rate as the Greater London area (GLA), or the Inner East London
Area (IELA), between 1995-98 and 1998-2000.
If it had followed the Greater London Area trend between 1995-98, then
employment in the JLE Corridor would have been 16,600 higher at 1998, or
23,200 higher if it had followed the Inner East London Area trend. This
suggests that no employment effect took place in advance of the JLE
opening. But it may also highlight the fact that, in the absence of the JLE, the
Corridor could be expected to continue to under perform relative to other parts
of London.
The post-opening period is very different. This shows the JLE Corridor as
having 32,400 more jobs than it would have done if it had followed the Greater
London Area growth rates of employment, or 15,800 higher had it followed
Inner East London Area growth rates of employment.
Evidence suggests that employment has continued to grow strongly in parts of
the JLE Corridor since 2000; for example, nearly 30,000 jobs have been
added at Canary Wharf between 2000 and 2003. The capacity provided by
the JLE is able to support a total of 48,000 jobs on the Isle of Dogs.
© Association for European Transport 2004
Table 1 JLE Area Wards and Corridor Trend Growth Rates.
If Greater London growth
rates:
Primary, Manufacturing &
Construction
Wholesale, Retail
Hotels & Catering
Transport
&
Communications
Financial & Business
Public Admin & Services
Total
If Inner East London Area
growth rates
Primary, Manufacturing &
Construction
Wholesale, Retail
Hotels & Catering
Transport
&
Communications
Financial & Business
Public Admin & Services
Total
5.2
GLA
1995-98
Actual
1998
1998
Change
(ActualGLA)
1998
GLA 19982000
Actual
2000
2000
Change
(ActualGLA)
2000
41,800
38,600
24,000
37,700
38,000
22,400
-4,100
-600
-1,600
37,100
39,400
23,800
42,800
39,100
27,100
5,700
-300
3,300
30,300
119,500
127,600
381,800
34,800
121,000
111,400
365,200
4,500
1,500
-16,200
-16,600
36,600
139,000
117,700
393,600
36,700
155,400
124,900
426,000
100
16,400
7,200
32,400
IELA
1995-98
1998
Actual
1998
ActualIELA
1998
IELA 19952000
2000
Actual
Actual-IELA
2000
2000
40,300
40,000
26,300
37,700
38,000
22,400
-2,600
-2,000
-3,900
37,800
39,500
25,500
42,800
39,100
27,100
5,000
-400
1,600
32,400
122,700
126,700
388,400
34,800
121,000
111,400
365,200
2,400
-1,700
-15,300
-23,200
37,700
150,300
119,400
410,200
36,700
155,400
124,900
426,000
-1,000
5,100
5,500
15,800
Household Economic Activity
Changes in the JLE Corridor have closely mirrored those in the wider
reference areas, with a large increase in the proportion of the population in
employment between 1991 and 2001. In 2001, the population of the JLE
Corridor was marginally less likely to be in employment (59.6%) compared
with Greater London (63.2%), but more likely than the population of the IEL
reference area (58.8%).
With the commercial emphasis in London on the financial and business
sectors, it is not surprising that a high proportion of employment is found in
managerial professional and technical (MPT) occupations. Between 1991 and
2001, the proportion of employment in the MPT occupations in Greater
London and the IEL reference area increased to around 50% from around
40% (+11 pp.). During this period, the proportion of the population employed
in MPT occupations in the JLE Corridor increased by 19 pp to 50.6%, thereby
bringing it into line with the London average.
Economic Characteristics of Incumbent and Migrant Populations
Analysis of Household Panel Survey data (carried out in 1998/9 and 2000/1 in
four station catchment areas) revealed some significant differences in the
economic characteristics of the incumbent, in-mover (to existing properties)
and new-build residents (Table 2).
© Association for European Transport 2004
Table 2: Economic Profile of Incumbent and Migrant Residents Across the Surveyed
Catchment Areas
ALL SURVEYED STATION CATCHMENTS
Staying
(2000/1)
Staying
(1998/9)
Outmoving
(1998/9)
In-moving Newbuild
(2000/1)
(2000/1)
Employed (%) (individuals aged 16 and older)
50.0
49.2
61.9
67.7
83.0
Employed in managerial, professional & associate
professional or technical occupations (%)
28.3
35.5
47.8
59.8
82.1
1,746
1,918
310
347
711
909
909
179
179
404
Sample:
Individuals (n >= 11 years)
Households (n)
Source: JLEIS Household Survey 1998/9 and 2000/1. Quoted samples sizes relate to the absolute base; data have
not been weighted. Marginally different sample sizes may apply to the presented variables according to the question
specific response rate. Household sample numbers are always consistent. Individual household sample numbers
vary between sample period due to (i) in-ward and out-ward movement of individual household members and (ii)
natural ageing of the population, including household members crossing the 11 year age threshold.
While the proportion in employment among the incumbent population
remained unchanged following the opening of the JLE (50% before vs. 49%
after), this figure was 19 pp. higher among in-movers (at 68%) and 34 pp
higher among new-build occupants (at 83%). The incumbent residents
showed an increase in the proportion in managerial, professional or technical
(MPT) occupations between 1998/9 and 2000/1 of 7pp, although this
remained relatively low, at 36%. In contrast, migrants were considerably more
likely to be employed in the MPT occupations: 60% of in-movers and 82% of
new-build occupants.
Overall, the evidence suggests that the JLE has had little positive impact on
employment among the incumbent populations, either in terms of higher
levels or in the character of employment (occupation and industry). Instead,
changes are largely the result of the different profile of the migrants. Most
notably, those moving into new-build, were significantly more likely to be
employed, possess higher-level qualifications and be employed in MPT
occupations.
Although the sample of out-movers is small, the economic profile of this group
shared more in common with other migrants than with the incumbent
population. This might suggest an exodus by the younger, employed and
better qualified residents in search of better opportunities and living
arrangements. Further examination, however, reveals that a high proportion of
these residents were recent migrants, themselves having moved to the
catchments within the last two years. Combined with the intention of many
recent migrants to move again, might in turn suggest that locating to the area
was intended as a temporary measure, possibly to obtain a foothold in the
London property and labour markets, before moving on elsewhere.
5.3
Unemployment rates of corridor residents
The JLE Corridor has historically suffered from particularly high
unemployment rates, and the increase in employment in the JLE Corridor
appears to have been of some, but only limited, benefit to established local
residents. In the five years from August 1996 to August 2001, recorded
unemployment in the JLE Corridor fell by 49% (Table 3). However, this was
© Association for European Transport 2004
less than for Inner East London (54%) and considerably less than for the
whole of Greater London (58%) – indicating that the JLE has not been able to
assist in making inroads into long-term, core unemployment levels.
Table 3. Change in unemployment among residents of the JLE Corridor compared to
other areas of London, between August 1996 and August 2001.
Area
Unemployment
Aug-96
Aug-98
JLE Corridor
13,260
Inner East London
153,650
Central London
8,310
Greater London
368,850
Source: Revised Annual Employment
available for 1995.
Aug-01
Growth
Growth
Growth
1996-1998 1998-2001 1996-2001
Base=1996 Base=1996 Base=1996
8,950
6,720
-32.5
-16.8
-49.3
103,340
70,270
-32.7
-21.5
-54.3
6,170
4,450
-25.8
-20.7
-46.5
230,490
154,660
-37.5
-20.6
-58.1
Survey Analysis, Annual Business Inquiry, NOMIS. Data not
For London as a whole, between September 1996 and December 2000 it is
estimated that 609,000 new jobs were created and unemployment fell by
214,200. This is a ratio of one less unemployed person for every 3 jobs
created. For the ‘Outer eight’ JLE station catchment areas (i.e. east of London
Bridge) employment increased by 42,000 between September 1995 and
December 2000. In the slightly different, but equal, time period from August
1996 to August 2001, unemployment in the same area fell by 5,300. Only one
less unemployed person is recorded for every 8 new jobs.
This shows that the link between local job creation and local unemployment
reduction is by no means a direct one-to-one process. Given the positive
impact of the JLE in increasing employment levels, it is disappointing that the
JLE has not had more success in reducing relative unemployment levels in its
catchment areas.
5.4
Impacts on the wider economy
Over the last couple of years, Transport for London and Cross London Rail
Links have attempted to develop mechanisms for measuring and valuing
some of the wider economic and social benefits of major new rail construction.
Consultants were commissioned to measure the impact on Gross Domestic
Product derived from JLE user benefits and efficiency gains (known as
agglomeration benefits).
5.4.1 GDP growth derived from JLE user benefits
The degree to which the transportation benefits contribute to GDP depends
largely on journey purpose (leisure, commuting and in-work time), value of
time and the proportion of transport benefits that can be turned into economic
growth.
It is estimated that between £2.1 and £2.9 billion pounds of the £10.9 billion
(Net Present Value) transportation benefits of the JLE will result in additional
© Association for European Transport 2004
economic growth over a 60-year period. That equates to between 19% and
26% of the transport benefits. In addition, since the British Government’s tax
take is about 40% of UK GDP, this suggests that between £0.8 and £1.1bn at
2003 prices will accrue to the government through existing tax mechanisms
over a 60 year period.
5.4.2 Agglomeration Benefits
There is a transport constraint on further growth in central London set by the
capacity of the existing networks. Research for Cross London Rail Links
suggests that employment is at the limit of the available transport capacity.
The JLE has served to open up a new part of that central cluster on the Isle of
Dogs (specifically at Canary Wharf) as well as adding capacity into the West
End from the south and east. By enabling the urban cluster to grow it will have
increased productivity for the additional jobs within the cluster and for the
base jobs that were already located within the urban cluster.
It has been estimated that £5.8bn (2003 prices) net value will be gained as a
result of the JLE between 2000 and 2060 due to the direct employment
added. We attribute a further £3.8bn (2003 prices) to output gained over the
same period for agglomeration benefits arising from increased overall
employment density. All of the £5.8bn and 40% of the £3.8bn is expected to
accrue to Government through increased tax revenues, a total in excess of
£7.32bn in 2003 prices.
6
6.1
IMPACTS ON THE RESIDENT POPULATION
Population Growth in the JLE Corridor
The Census indicates marginally faster population growth in the JLE Corridor
than in the reference area between 1981-1991. Significantly faster growth was
observed between 1991-2001, when the population in the JLE Corridor grew
by 31.2%, compared with 10.7% growth in the IEL reference area. Population
growth has not occurred in all parts of the Corridor, and it is interesting to note
that the largest population increases have occurred in the catchments where
the JLE has provided access to the underground for the first time, i.e.
between Bermondsey and Canning Town.
Potential explanatory factors include the high level of vacant land available for
residential development and the supportive residential development policies
of the now defunct London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC).
However, the JLE has clearly been a positive factor. Between 1997-99, after
the LDDC had been wound up, a disproportionately high volume of all
residential development recorded in the IEL area, and the key JLE boroughs
(Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham), was focussed in the central
sections of the JLE Corridor between Bermondsey and Canning Town.
Despite the larger population increases in the JLE Corridor, the trends in age
and ethnic structure were broadly similar to those observed in Greater London
and the reference areas: the population grew both ‘younger’ and more
© Association for European Transport 2004
ethnically diverse. However, between 1991 and 2001, the extent of this
structural change was greater within the JLE Corridor, where the younger
population, aged 0-45 years, increased by +7.0 pp. compared with Greater
London (+2.1 pp) and IEL (+4.3 pp.). The ethnic population of the Corridor
increased by +14.1 pp. compared with smaller changes in Greater London
(+8.6 pp) and the IEL reference area (+10.6 pp.). By 2001 the population in
the JLE Corridor exhibited a younger profile when compared with the
reference areas but, despite significant structural change, remained less
ethnically diverse.
The trend towards smaller households, evident in Greater London and the IEL
reference area, was also reflected in the household composition within the
JLE Corridor. Since 1971, single person households have increased, as have
single parent households.
6.2
Migration Patterns in the JLE Corridor
Historically, a high proportion of migration within the JLE Corridor, as
elsewhere in London, was local in nature, involving moves within the same
borough or between neighbouring London boroughs. Analysis of the
Household Panel Survey indicates a recent change in migration patterns; the
four catchments were attracting migrants from greater distances. In 1998/9
and 2000/1, migrants locating to the catchments in the previous two years,
were much less likely to have moved locally (as defined above) and more
likely to have moved from further afield in London, or from outside of London.
This suggests that these areas are increasingly being considered as desirable
places in which to live.
However, much of the relocation by new migrants – in-mover and new-build –
appears to be ‘transitory’ in nature. Between one-fifth and one-third of new
migrants planned to relocate again within the next year, and a high proportion
intended to leave the area. There was evidence of similar activity in 1998/9;
when an examination of out-moving households revealed that between onethird and one-half had resided in the catchment for less than two years before
moving.
The proportion of in-movers citing either the ‘opening of the JLE’ (5% to 7%)
or ‘existing local public transport’ (0% to 6%) as an influence on their location
choice was relatively low. The exception was Canary Wharf where 16% of inmovers cited ‘existing local public transport’. Among new-build households,
existing ‘local public transport’ was cited more frequently, particularly in
Canada Water (11%) and Canning Town (12%) but less so in Bermondsey
(4%) and Canary Wharf (6%); 17% of new-build households in Canada Water
explicitly mentioned the ‘opening of the JLE’ as an influencing factor.
‘Convenience for work’ was more commonly cited as a locational influence,
mentioned by 13% of incumbent residents in Bermondsey, 24% in Canada
Water and 32% in Canary Wharf. These proportions were much higher among
migrants: in the catchment areas between Bermondsey and Canary Wharf,
‘convenience for work’ was cited by 39%-57% of in-movers and by 53%-59%
© Association for European Transport 2004
of new-build occupants. Given the relatively low proportions of these groups
employed locally (between 7% and 23%), this suggests a link between
relocating to the areas and the opening of the JLE.
6.3
Characteristics of the Incumbent and Migrant Populations
There are quite significant differences between the population characteristics
of the incumbent, out-mover and new-build residents, as shown in Table 4.
Migrant residents were significantly younger than the incumbent residents
(with the latter having a mean age of 40). On average in-mover residents
were 11 years younger (at 29 years) and new-build residents were 7 years
younger (at 33 years). This difference was largely due to the absence among
migrants of residents over 65 years and a much-reduced proportion aged
between 40-64 years. The smaller difference among the new-build residents
was due to the virtual absence of children aged 0-15 years.
New-build migrants moving into the catchments were more likely to be from
white ethnic origins (81%), compared with the incumbent population (69%).
This is counter to the general trend observed in the Census, where a high
proportion of migrants were from the ethnic minority groups.
Table 4: Contrasting Profiles of Resident Groups in the Surveyed Catchments
ALL SURVEYED STATION CATCHMENTS
Staying
(1998/9)
Staying
(2000/1)
In-moving Newbuild
(2000/1)
(2000/1)
Outmoving
(1998/9)
Migrants making local move (%) (Note a)
64.9
55.4
36.9
41.5
30.6
Average age (Note b )
39.9
40.1
34.5
29.0
32.9
White ethnic origin (%) (Note c )
69.0
68.0
75.4
66.8
81.4
Married or cohabiting couple (%)
17.4
17.3
14.5
16.8
32.9
Property owned or buying with mortgage (%)
25.0
30.6
25.2
20.2
36.5
13,201
16,182
21,076
24,204
45,067
Households claiming 1+ benefit (%) (Note e)
56.2
51.8
35.6
28.0
8.5
Car owning household (%)
49.4
49.4
52.0
39.1
62.1
1,746
1,918
310
347
711
909
909
179
179
404
Average household income (£) (Note d)
Sample:
Individuals (n >= 11 years)
Households (n)
Source: JLEIS Household Survey 1998/9 and 2000/1. Quoted samples sizes relate to the absolute base; data have
not been weighted. Marginally different sample sizes may apply to the presented variables according to the question
specific response rate. Household sample numbers are always consistent. Individual household sample numbers
vary between sample period due to (i) in-ward and out-ward movement of individual household members and (ii)
natural ageing of the population, including household members crossing the 11 year age threshold.
(a) ‘Local moves’ defined as moves within the same local authority: Southwark for Bermondsey and Canada Water,
Tower Hamlets for Isle of Dogs and Newham for Canning Town.
(b) Cited average age calculated on individuals aged 11 years and older. 1998/9 Survey did not collect ages of
individual members aged 10 years and younger. 'Staying' households were more likely to contain young persons
aged 15 years and under compared with 'Out-movers and 'In-movers'; Newbuild households were least likely to
contain young persons.
(c) Cited percentages calculated on individuals aged 11 years and older. 1998/9 Survey did not collect the ethnic
origin of individual members aged 10 years and younger.
(d) Average household income calculated as McClements Equivalised Gross Income and based on responding
households only; 5% trimmed mean.
(e) Benefits including non-means tested Child benefit and means tested benefits: Family Credit, Income Support,
State Pension, Job Seekers Allowance and Housing benefit.
© Association for European Transport 2004
New-build households were twice as likely to be married or co-habiting (33%)
compared with incumbent households (17%). Both in-mover and new-build
households were less likely to be single person or single parent households.
While the average equivalised household income of incumbent households
increased by nearly 23% between 1998/9 and 2000/1 (to £16,200 or 24,000
Euro), this change was in line with the London average. Migrant households
were likely to enjoy higher incomes and were less likely to be in receipt of
benefits. The average income of in-mover households in 2000/1 was 50%
higher (at £24,200 or 35,600 Euro), while the average income of new-build
households was 178% higher (at £45,100 or 66,300 Euro). The receipt of
state benefits was highest among the incumbent residents (56%); in-mover
(28%) and new-build (9%) residents were much less likely to claim benefits.
New-build households were most likely to own or be buying the property in
which they lived (37%), followed by incumbent households (31%) and then inmovers (20%). Levels of car ownership were also higher among in-mover
(39%) and new-build (62.1%) than incumbent (49%) households.
7
TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR
General travel characteristics of respondents to the Household Panel Survey
are summarised in Table 5. In 2001, the highest reported levels of general
use of the JLE were by new-build residents (73%), followed by in-movers
(60%); much lower levels of use were reported by incumbent residents (37%).
Table 5: Travel Profile of Resident Groups Across the Surveyed Catchments
ALL SURVEYED STATION CATCHMENTS
Staying
(1998/9)
General use of the JLE (%)
Shopping (food) (% locally) (Note g)
Personal shopping (% using JLE)
Employed locally (%) (Note h)
Travel to work using the JLE (%)
Sample:
Individuals (n >= 11 years)
Households (n)
Staying
(2000/1)
Outmoving
(1998/9)
In-moving Newbuild
(2000/1)
(2000/1)
-
36.7
-
59.6
73.1
81.1
78.4
86.1
80.6
65.1
-
20.6
-
38.2
42.9
30.3
28.5
19.5
14.6
16.2
-
30.1
-
38.6
34.2
1,746
1,918
310
347
711
909
909
179
179
404
Source: JLEIS Household Survey 1998/9 and 2000/1. Quoted samples sizes relate to the absolute base; data have
not been weighted. Marginally different sample sizes may apply to the presented variables according to the question
specific response rate. Household sample numbers are always consistent. Individual household sample numbers
vary between sample period due to (i) in-ward and out-ward movement of individual household members and (ii)
natural ageing of the population, including household members crossing the 11 year age threshold.
(g) ‘Local shopping’ defined as SE1 and SE16 for Bermondsey; SE16 for Canada Water; E14 for Canary Wharf (Isle
of Dogs); E14 and E16 for Canning Town.
(h) ‘Local employment’ defined as: SE1 and SE16 for Bermondsey; SE16 for Canada Water; E14 for Canary Wharf
(Isle of Dogs); E14 and E16 for Canning Town.
The focus of the weekly household shop by incumbent and by migrant
households remained the local area; as a consequence, the JLE was rarely
used for this purpose. However, new-build residents were less likely to use
local shopping areas (65%), compared with around 80% among incumbent
© Association for European Transport 2004
and in-mover households. The JLE was more frequently used by all groups
for personal shopping, particularly among the new-build residents where use
was highest (43%).
There was no change in the location of employment among the incumbent
population, where a relatively high proportion of residents (30%), continued to
be employed locally. Consequently, there was no increase in the proportion of
residents crossing the Thames for work. In contrast, migrant residents were
less likely to be employed locally (15% of in-movers and 16% of new-build).
There was some evidence of increased cross-Thames travel among newbuild residents living south of the Thames, but travel south of the river was not
evident among the new-build residents living north of the Thames.
Given the pattern of employment, it was not surprising that use of the JLE was
relatively low among the incumbent employed (30%) and higher among the
migrant populations, although not substantially so: 37% among the in-mover
and 34% among the new-build employed.
8
ENVIRONMEMTAL AND TOWNSCAPE IMPACTS
The impact of the JLE on the environment was assessed on six dimensions: i)
noise and vibration, ii) air quality, iii) water quality, iv) urban ecology, v)
contaminated land and vi) cultural heritage and townscape. The monitoring
exercises indicated that the JLE was found to have little direct impact on the
environment. Much of this is the result of the technology used in the operation
of the JLE and the route of the JLE, travelling either underground or parallel to
existing railway lines.
Where negative noise impacts were observed these were at locations already
affected by other sources, including road and other train operations. Indeed,
there were a number of dimensions on which the JLE has had a positive
impact. The JLE trains are powered by electricity so there are no direct
combustion emissions at the point of operation and there are potential
reductions in emissions resulting from modal switch to the JLE for some
journeys. The construction and operation of the JLE has also resulted in a
reduction in previously contaminated land. Contaminated land was acquired
for operational reasons, and by using the spoil from tunnel construction to cap
the site at North Greenwich, this enabled the site to be brought into use,
preventing the need to transport the contaminated waste to another location.
9
LESSONS LEARNT
The impact study spanned a six-year period, during which the policy
environment has changed considerably, and a number of lessons were learnt
regarding the appraisal process, and the role and capability of monitoring
studies.
© Association for European Transport 2004
9.1
Policy Issues
The JLE was conceived as a strategic transport link in the London rail
network, which would also encourage the regeneration of the area through
which it passed. As a consequence, less attention was paid to local impacts
and to some broader policy issues than would be considered appropriate in
the current policy climate.
Five aspects are identified that would now demand greater attention:
•
•
•
•
•
9.2
Complementary land use policies: local authority policies did not
encourage higher density development around stations, nor reduce
parking standards, although this is now changing;
Non-vehicular transport: while much emphasis was placed on good
bus/rail interchange, relatively little effort was put into ensuring good local
access on foot or by bicycle;
Social inclusion: it was assumed that local residents and businesses would
benefit from regeneration along the route of the JLE, but there were no
complementary policies to ensure that these benefits were maximised
(e.g. by re-training local unemployed residents);
Sustainability: several of the Mayor’s strategies now stress the importance
of increasing the sustainability of activity in London. Again, in keeping with
earlier policy priorities, no sustainability audit was undertaken to assess
the contribution that the JLE could make, either in terms of its construction
or operation;
Land value capture: this is discussed further below.
Appraising the impact of new transport investments
The JLE was quantitatively appraised using the standard procedures for the
assessment of transport schemes at that time. It was recognised, however,
that this was only a partial evaluation and was not able to include a large
number of benefits, many of which were unquantifiable or could not be
monetarised.
Since then the procedures for the appraisal of transport investment schemes
have been revised, with the development of the New Approach to Transport
Appraisal (NATA) and the Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal
Studies (GOMMMS). In this study we have developed our own methodology,
but based on the NATA approach. We have found that it suffers from the
strengths and weaknesses of all such multi-criteria approaches. The strength
is that they ensure that a wide range of potential impacts is covered; the
weakness is that there is no recognised way of determining the relative
importance of the different indicators.
A particularly important issue for appraisal is the extent to which changes in
land and property values should be included. Traditionally, these have been
paid little attention, because it has been argued that the increase in land
values brought about by a new transport investment is due to the change in
transport accessibility, the benefits of which are directly measured in terms of
© Association for European Transport 2004
travel time savings. To include both indicators would, therefore, be doublecounting the same underlying benefit.
However, there are several counter arguments:
•
•
•
•
9.3
If changes in land and property values are used as a major means of
financing new transport investment, as currently proposed, then it is
essential to estimate these values and include them in the appraisal;
Only part of the increase in property prices is likely to be directly
attributable to the increase in accessibility. After a short period of operation
of the JLE, any further uplift in value is likely to be due to multiplier
effects associated with enhanced area attractiveness due to the initial
accessibility-stimulated investment. These agglomeration effects would not
be captured in estimates of travel time savings;
Increases in property prices and land values have important distributional
effects, forcing some poorer renters to move out to cheaper areas.
Further, those who gain financially from price increases may be different
from those who benefit from time savings;
Finally, changes in land and property values are crucial to understanding
the regeneration process. They give a clear indication of market demand
for property in an area; and the prevailing prices largely determine the
commercial attractiveness of refurbishing or redeveloping a site, and
influence the density at which it is worth constructing new development.
Role and capability of monitoring studies
The decisions to use ‘reference’ rather than ‘control’ areas, to start measuring
potential impacts several years in advance of the line’s construction and
operation, and to use qualitative as well as quantitative data to assess
causation, were all vindicated.
One element of our methodology which, with the benefit of hindsight, we
would recommend dropping in any future impact study was the preparation of
a Baseline Forecast, in advance of the opening of the line. This proved to be a
time-consuming and ineffective process. In a large and complex environment
such as the JLE Corridor, the best estimate of the ‘without JLE’ situation can
only be made when all the facts are known, once the ‘after’ data is available.
In the event, far less reliance was placed on the Baseline Forecasts than had
originally been intended.
In a number of cases, data problems have proved to be more significant than
anticipated, in particular:
•
•
•
Some data sets have proved difficult to obtain (e.g. property market
values);
Others have a long time lag, making it difficult to include data for a
significant period of time after the JLE started operation;
Difficulties in obtaining detailed 2001 Census travel data or LATS data
within the timescales of the study have prevented us from making as
© Association for European Transport 2004
•
comprehensive an assessment of changes in travel behaviour along the
whole of the JLE Corridor as we would have liked; and
Some data sets lack important variables (e.g. in the LDMS, former use of a
site planned for (re)development).
Recent developments in data collection and collation (e.g. UK neighbourhood
statistics, GIS-referenced data sets, and new tracking technologies) should
simplify certain aspects of monitoring in any future study.
One of the main lessons for monitoring to have emerged from this study is an
enhanced understanding of the various processes of change, both with regard
to their timing and the nature of their impact. In future, this knowledge should
both enable more targeted collection of data, and a more realistic expectation
of the extent to which various impacts are likely to manifest themselves within
different time periods.
10 CONCLUSIONS
London Transport indicated in their evidence to the House of Commons
Committee scrutinising the JLE, that the expected benefits of the JLE
included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The provision of a direct link between Docklands and the commuter
terminals of Waterloo and London Bridge;
Greatly increasing the transport capacity into the Isle of Dogs;
Providing a direct link between Docklands and the West End;
Strengthening public transport links between Stratford with its commuter
services and Docklands;
Opening up the North Greenwich Peninsula;
Relieving congestion on existing lines and at existing stations;
Improving access by the Underground to Southwark and Bermondsey;
Improving access between the West End and Waterloo and London
Bridge;
Relieving road congestion in a number of busy Corridors;
Enhancing transport for tourism and leisure; and
Providing London's safest Underground railway line.
On the basis of our appraisal we believe these benefits have largely been
realised, although it has not been possible to assess all of them (e.g. relief of
road congestion).
The impacts of the JLE on London have been many and diverse though, in
practice, it is often difficult to attribute causation. The extent and subtleties of
the impacts can only be fully appreciated by reading the accompanying
working papers and summary report (available at www.wmin.ac.uk and
www.tfl.gov.uk) which give more details of the results of the studies and
surveys specially commissioned for the JLEIS.
The JLE has raised land values and property prices and has stimulated faster
development than might otherwise have been expected. This impact is most
© Association for European Transport 2004
clearly evident in the Isle of Dogs, where the recent expansion of the initial
Canary Wharf development has to some extent been both the cause and
effect of the JLE. The need to provide adequate capacity to serve the full
proposed development at Canary Wharf was one of the key reasons for
constructing the JLE, and much of the recent development in the Isle of Dogs
would not have happened as quickly – if at all - without the JLE. This applies
even more strongly to the major expansion of development that is currently in
the pipeline.
Given the recent strength of the London property market and the potential
offered by Docklands in having a significant supply of relatively underoccupied brownfield sites, it is probable that pressures for more development
in Docklands would by now be emerging, even without the JLE. The JLE has,
however, almost certainly hastened this trend that has been most apparent
between London Bridge and the Isle of Dogs, and has relieved a major
transport bottleneck constraint. Without the JLE the development would also
probably have been of a different character and at a lower density.
The general impact of the JLE on employment and business activity in
London is more difficult to assess. We have shown that employment around
JLE stations east of London Bridge has increased faster than for London as a
whole, however from a relatively low base. The impact of the Canary Wharf
development on the economy of London has been much more profound than
the 50,000 jobs which by the start of 2003 had been created or relocated
there. The existence of the Canary Wharf development demonstrated to
international firms, particularly in the financial sector, that there was a
potentially available and expandable supply of high quality office
accommodation suitable for their needs and at lower rents than were then
being charged in the City of London. Without this London might have found it
harder to sustain its predominant financial position in Europe in the face of
competition from other European capitals. As such the JLE, by enabling
Canary Wharf to be developed, has made a major contribution to the whole
London and national economy.
The JLE passes through some of the most deprived wards in the country, and
part of the intention in using the JLE as a catalyst to stimulate regeneration
was to help increase the well being of the local population. There is strong
evidence that the JLE has helped to increase economic activity in parts of the
Corridor, but the limited evidence on the extent to which this has benefited the
local indigenous population is mixed:
•
•
The traditional local population, particularly in the Docklands and Lower
Lea Valley areas, have made relatively little use of the JLE and their travel
patterns have been largely unaffected by the investment;
Local people have benefited only to a limited extent from the large
increases in local employment partly attributable to the JLE. Long-term
unemployment rates have dropped proportionally by no more in the station
catchment areas than in comparable areas, confirming that the JLE has
not helped to address these deep-seated local problems (e.g. providing
employment for people who have been unemployed for a long period).
© Association for European Transport 2004
These may, however, be short or medium term phenomena. The process of
regeneration may begin with an increase in property prices and up-market
developments, but its primary benefit to local residents, employees,
customers and visitors lies in improving the quality of the whole urban
environment, ultimately creating new opportunities which are potentially
available to all.
The new development which the JLE has fostered may also have acted as a
safety valve, preventing even faster rises of prices in the Inner East London
housing market than would otherwise have been the case, and has relieved
pressure on other parts of London. This must have had a beneficial effect on
the whole London economy.
In identifying the effect of the JLE it is important to note that certain impacts
will manifest themselves over varying lengths of time. It is likely that the
majority of journeys re-routing to take advantage of the JLE would have
occurred within a relatively short time period of the JLE opening. In contrast,
several decades may well be required to allow the full effect of the JLE on
land use patterns (and associated travel patterns) to take place, and hence
allow the full impacts of the scheme to be assessed.
© Association for European Transport 2004
References
Colin Buchanan & Partners (2004) Reappraisal of the Jubilee Line Extension,
prepared on behalf of Transport for London (TfL), London.
JLEISU (1997) Working Paper No.4: Concepts and Methodological
Framework for Assessing the Impact of the JLE, prepared by the Jubilee Line
Extension Impact Study Unit.
JLEISU (2004a) Working Paper No.57: Land and Property Value Study,
prepared on behalf of the Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study Unit by Jones
Lang LaSalle.
JLEISU (2004b) Working Paper No.54: Summary Final report, prepared by
the Jubilee Line Extension Impact Study Unit.
Acknowledgements
The JLE Impact Study Unit would like to thank all the consultants that have
made contributions to the study:
Robert Lane (Consultant)
Tim Pharoah (Consultant)
Chestertons UK, Property Market Study
Jones Lang LaSalle, Land and Property Value Study
Halcrow Fox, Transport Study
Sinclair Knight Mertz, Transport Study
MVA, Transport Study
Arup Economics & Planning, Development Activity Study
Tim Pharoah (Consultant), Development Activity Study
University of North London, Visitor Activity Study
Oxford Brookes University & University of Surrey, Perceptions Study
Roger Tym & Partners, Economic Activity and Labour Market Study
Environmental Resources Management, Environment Study
Scott Wilson, Environment Study
Social Transport & Research Associates, Agents of Change Survey
Tim Grosvenor Associates
IPSOS, Household and Employer panel Surveys
Taylor Nelson Sofres, Household Panel Survey
NOP, Employer Panel Survey
Llewelyn-Davies, Land Use Survey
© Association for European Transport 2004