Dear Mr Barry

 

TfL Ref: FOI-2555-1314

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 26 March 2014 asking for
information about modelling work for London orbital tunnel.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

A response will be provided to you by 25 April 2014.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Barry

 

TfL Ref: FOI-2555-1314

 

Thank you again for your email which we received on 26 March 2014.

 

Your request is being considered under the terms of the Environmental
Information Regulations (EIRs).

 

Unfortunately because of its complexity, we will be unable to resolve your
request within the initial statutory 20 working day deadline. This is
because we are still reviewing the information you have requested and
working on the response.

 

To enable us to fully consider your request, in accordance with the EIRs
we have had to extend the deadline for providing a response to 40 working
days from the date we received your request. The amended date for a final
response is now 27 May 2014. We are working hard to ensure that you
receive a response before this date. 

 

I apologise for the delay and any inconvenience this may cause you. If you
have any queries or would like to discuss your request, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response, please read the attached
help-sheet entitled ‘Your Right to Appeal’

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Barry

 

TfL Ref: FOI-2555-1314

 

Thank you for your email which we received on 26 March 2014 asking for
information about modelling work relating to a London orbital tunnel.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access
policy.  I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. You
asked for:

 

... a copy of the parameters of this modelling including any of the
following that applied:

 

- tunnelling techniques modelled

 

The transport modelling assumes a tunnel is in place irrespective of
construction method.

 

- alternative alignments studied

 

Various policy scenarios were considered by the RTF as it developed its
report. The scenarios considered a broader range of conceptual options
than just tunnelling alignments. The scenarios considered:

·         Place improvements across London with no mitigation for their
assumed impact on congestion

·         Place improvements within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ)
only, and enhanced Inner Ring Road (IRR) vehicle capacity

·         Place improvements within the CAZ only, and removal of moving /
place conflicts on the IRR using a series of short tunnels

·         Place improvements within CAZ and on the IRR, with
Congestion-charge-exempt through routes to reduce traffic levels on the
IRR

·         Place improvements within the CAZ, on the IRR and in inner
London, with enhanced vehicle capacity on the North and South Circular
Roads

·         Place improvements within the CAZ, on the IRR, in inner London
and in Metropolitan Town Centres, with enhanced vehicle capacity on the
North and South Circular Roads and with town centre by-passes

·         Place improvements within the CAZ, on the IRR, in inner London
and in Metropolitan Town Centres, with a new inner-orbital corridor (the
tolled tunnel referred to in the RTF report)

 

- tunnel length

 

The modelled route is about 70kms long excluding slip roads.

 

- road width (number of lanes)

 

Modelling assumed three lanes, with a lane drop at junctions.

 

- junction locations with surface roads

 

Modelling assumed an orbital tunnel with junctions with the:

·         A10/A503

·         A12/A11

·         A13

·         A2

·         A23/A205

·         A3

·         A4

·         A40

·         A41

·         A1

 

- indicative building costs

 

Building costs were not estimated as part of this exercise.

 

- indicative surface land take

 

Surface land take was not studied as part of this exercise.

 

I would also like to request a copy of the subsequent report on this
modelling that fed into the RTF to form the basis of the conclusions in
their report.

 

An internal technical note, written for a TfL audience, was produced and
is attached. The note sets out the early exploration of alternative
conceptual approaches. The note should not be taken as an indication of
policy.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections