Future for London Adapting for demographic change
19th March 2013
Existing projections give a big range 11,000,000
10,500,000
Total Population
10,000,000
9,500,000
9,000,000
8,500,000
8,000,000
ONS 2010 SNPP ONS 2011 SNPP 7,500,000
7,000,000 2001
GLA 2011 SHLAA
2006
2011
2016
2021 Year
2026
2031
2036
2041
London births 1965 - 2010 150,000 140,000 130,000
Births
120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990 Year
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Internal migration 300
200
150
100
50
In Out
0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
No. of people (thousands)
250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Rolling years to end each quarter
2009
2010
2011
International migration 300
200
150
100
50
In Out
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
No. of people (thousands)
250
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Rolling years to end each quarter
2009
2010
2011
GLA proposed domestic migration scenario 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000
Flow
150,000 100,000 Out
50,000
In Net
0 2001
2006
2011
2016
-50,000 -100,000 -150,000 Year
2021
2026
2031
Constrained/Unconstrained projections
Millions
Greater London
11.0
10.5
Total population
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5 2012rnd SHLAA
8.0
2012rnd unconstrained
7.5
7.0 2001
2006
2011
2016
Year
2021
2026
2031
2036
2041
2011 Census
2011 London 2012 GLA Plan constrained
2012 GLA unc’nstrn’d
8.17
7.8
8.2
8.2
2016
8.06
8.7
8.76
2021
8.32
9.1
9.22
2031
8.82
9.67
9.95
9.89
10.26
2011
2036
London’s changing age structure 200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
Persons
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000 2036 - GLA 5yr average 20,000
2001 MYE 2011 MYE
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45 Age
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90+
How do we approach what could be a radical change in London’s demography? • Vision 2020: practical near/medium term focus nb recession recovery, but also the big picture/issues for the future? • A Further Alteration to the London Plan: constrained by current philosophy, but can flag possible issues for a future full Review? • Full Review: once we’re clear where these trends are likely to lead us?
What might this mean for…. housing • Current supply: 32k pa, but 200k in pipeline. Non planning barriers to delivery • Housing requirement: currently 35k, for the future at least 40k? • How will this translate into tenures? Nb other factors resource constraints, old provision models • What will it mean spatially eg selective intensification (town centres, inner London?); mixed use in industrial areas?; NPPF new towns? implications of major infrastructure eg Xrail II, airport? • Density: selectively higher but try and keep the quintessentially London? • Quality: space standards, balconies, climate change….
What might this mean for….. the economy • Traditionally employment projections are trend based – how do we factor in population increase (230 jobs/000)? • How do we resolve high value resi cf low value business space? • What is the office of the future going to look like nb impact of home working? • What role should industry have in a bourgeoning post industrial city? • How will pop increase bear on retailing? • And leisure…..?
What might this mean for …. the environment • Green Belt, MOL and London’s green spaces: should these be inviolate? • The built environment eg high buildings, lifetime neighbourhoods, heritage? • Water, energy, air quality, waste, aggregates? • Climate change abatement/adaptation?
What might this mean for ‌. the shape of London
What form comes next……?
THE LONDON PLAN: town centre network
THE LONDON PLAN: Opportunity & Intensification Areas
THE LONDON PLAN: Strategic Industrial Locations
THE LONDON PLAN: Areas for Regeneration
THE LONDON PLAN: strategic open space network
Future of London Simon Nielsen, Strategic Analysis, TfL
London – a rapidly growing population • •
London’s population has grown by almost 900,000 in the past ten years, the equivalent of adding more than the entire population of Leeds. The 2010 pre-Census estimates underestimated London’s population by almost 300,000 – which is greater than the population of Hull. 8.5
Greater London Population (millions)
8.3 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.1 6.9
6.7 Pre-Census (2011) mid year estimates 6.5
23
Population (millions)
Population growth is not evenly spread across London •
•
Certain boroughs have seen their populations grow by over 20 per cent since 2001 – including Hackney, Westminster, Newham and Tower Hamlets (which grew by 30 per cent). Other boroughs experienced more modest growth, while the population of Kensington & Chelsea fell slightly. 30% % change 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
24
City of London Barkingand Dagenham Barnet Bexley Brent Bromley Camden Croydon Ealing Enfield Greenwich Hackney Hammersmith and Fulham Haringey Harrow Havering Hillingdon Hounslow Islington Kensington and Chelsea Kingston upon Thames Lambeth Lewisham Merton Newham Redbridge Richmond upon Thames Southwark Sutton Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Wandsworth Westminster All
-5%
Population growth has driven an increase in travel demand •
The number of trips on an average day in London has also increased – up from 22.9 million in 2001 to 25.5 million in 2011.
•
However, the number of trips per person (trip rates) remained stable, at around 2.8 per person. 30
25
Trips per day (millions)
20
15
10
5
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Cycle trips
25
Walk trips
Private transport trips
Public transport trips
Within the increase in travel demand, there have been some very different trends • •
Total daily trips increased by almost the same rate as London’s population – up by 11 per cent on 2001. This increase was driven by a 39 per cent increase in public transport trips. In contrast, private transport trips decreased by 7 per cent, despite the increase in population over the same period. 150
140
Index: 2001 = 100
130
120
110
100
90
80 2001 2002 Total trips
2003
Walk/cycle stages
26
2004
2005 2006 2007 Public transport trips Population
2008
2009 2010 2011 Private transport trips Jobs
Mode shift – private to public •
•
In 2011, 43.3 per cent of daily trips were made by public transport. In 2001, this was 34.6 per cent – meaning an 8.7 percentage point mode shift to public transport. In contrast, private transport mode share fell from 42.6 per cent to 34.1 per cent.
Cycle 2% Rail 9%
Taxi 1%
Motorcycle 1%
DLR 1% Car 34%
Underground 11%
Walk 21% Bus (including tram) 22%
27
Greater population growth has implications for forecasts • •
In 2011, there were 5 per cent more daily trips in London than forecast in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS). By 2031, using current population projections, there could be 8% more trips, equal to 2.1 million extra per day. 130 125 120
Index: 2001 = 100
115
8% more trips forecast in 2031 than forecast in MTS
5% more trips in 2011 than forecast in MTS
110 105 100 95 90 85 MTSforecast 80
28
Trips (forecast)
Trips
Future population growth is predicted to be higher in East London 2011 London Plan
South
Change 2011-31 Change 2011-31 % Share of growth
86
5%
8%
East
501
23%
49%
West
106
7%
10%
North
145
13%
14%
Central
183
13%
18%
South
205
12%
14%
East
566
25%
39%
West
205
13%
14%
North
192
16%
13%
Central
284
20%
20%
GLA 2012 Constrained Projection
29
The MTS proposes enhancements to London’s transport infrastructure – the main funded improvements in South London are enhancements to existing surface rail This figure sets out funded and unfunded improvements featured in the strategy
30
Potential Implications •
• • •
• • •
31
Scale of growth...does this mean that the next tranche of big projects should be brought forward? Are they still the right projects? How to pay for all that is needed? Geographical / spatial distribution ... For example, with more growth in South London does this make a case for extra infrastructure? Increased densities...what are the implications? More pressures for space for parking, more PT? How does this affect demand? Characteristics of the extra people...are they older, younger, more from abroad? Each could have different transport requirements.. Employment – if smaller than population growth will there be an increase in outward commuting? Environmental implications...more populous dense city - more difficult to meet absolute targets but per capita emissions ... Role of demand management...increasing importance of behaviour change?