London Assembly

Transport Committee

A Question of Sports Travel: a review of travel

arrangements to and from London’s sports stadiums
October 2007

Page 1 of 35
A Question of Sports Travel: a review of travel
arrangements to and from London’s sports stadiums

Table of contents:
Executive summary .........................................................................................................3
Our vision ................................................................................................................................. 5
1. Background...............................................................................................................6
2. Improving public transport ...................................................................................7
New stadiums........................................................................................................................... 7
Wembley National Stadium ................................................................................................. 8
Emirates Stadium.................................................................................................................... 9
What lessons can be learned? ............................................................................................ 11
Existing stadiums ................................................................................................................. 13
White Hart Lane Stadium .................................................................................................. 14
Upton Park Stadium............................................................................................................. 15
3. Easing congestion for fans and local residents .............................................. 16
Travel information and travel planning.......................................................................... 17
Promoting walking and cycling ........................................................................................ 19
Park and Ride, coaches and shuttle bus services ........................................................... 20
Integrated ticketing.............................................................................................................. 21
Avoiding clashes between fixtures and engineering works........................................ 23
4. Who should be responsible for the fans’ journeys? ....................................... 25
5. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 28
Appendix 1: List of recommendations ............................................................................. 29
Appendix 2: Map of London’s main stadiums ................................................................ 31
Appendix 3: List of written responses ............................................................................. 32
Appendix 4: Meetings and site visits ............................................................................... 33
Appendix 5: Principles of London Assembly scrutiny ................................................. 34
Appendix 6: Orders and translations ............................................................................... 35

Page 2 of 35
Executive summary
About 250,000 fans use the capital’s transport network to get to and from sporting
matches week in week out during the autumn. London’s sporting stadiums and the
events held within their gates bring vibrancy and character to the capital. They
have the potential to bring in important investment and contribute to the identity of
the communities surrounding them.

However problems with matchday travel, especially after games, are threatening to
undermine these benefits. Fans experience delays, disruption and congestion when
trying to watch their team play at London’s stadiums. Similarly the lives of local
residents are disrupted on matchday by congestion on local roads and public
transport.

A number of factors are putting increased pressure on London’s transport network

on match days, affecting its ability to cope with the movement of fans. These
include:
• An increasing number of sporting and non-sporting events taking
place in London every weekend and mid-week.
• Increased capacity of events and stadiums in London, in part due to
new stadiums being built or existing stadiums being redeveloped.
• A breakdown of links between London’s stadiums and their local
communities as clubs are increasingly drawing their support from
outside London and fans are travelling from further afield.

A number of stadiums have been built or redeveloped in London in recent years.

This provides new challenges for the transport systems but also new opportunities.
Our examination of the recent developments at the Emirates and Wembley stadiums
revealed important lessons to be learnt for future developments.

The planning agreements entered into at these grounds as a means of securing

stadium owner investment in transport infrastructure have had mixed success.
Lessons learnt from the Emirates and Wembley stadium developments indicate that
robust business costings and studies need to be undertaken at the start of the
negotiations about these agreements. Transport improvements have been achieved
at new stadiums, such as Wembley Stadium, where the costs of investing in
transport infrastructure have been shared between transport providers and
developers. This is in stark contrast to the situation at the new Emirates Stadium
where a number of promised improvements to transport infrastructure have not
materialised.

There are also transport problems at London’s existing stadiums. We make a

number of recommendations in this report designed to help ease the congestion for
fans. Central to these recommendations is the involvement of the fans themselves
and the clubs. We received little evidence of fans being consulted or involved in
measures to ease congestion. Similarly, the clubs which are often in a prime position
Page 3 of 35
to promote relatively low cost initiatives appear to be doing little to help unless
compelled to do so as part of planning agreements.

One such initiative is integrated ticketing. This could play a key role in speeding up
the dispersal of fans after the match as well as making it easier for non-London
based fans to negotiate London’s transport network. We recommend that TfL
should take the lead on this idea and work with clubs to develop integrated ticketing
prior to the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Similarly, stadium travel plans have the potential to encourage more fans to use less
frequented public transport routes to get to and from stadiums or even to walk and
cycle. TfL has worked with some stadium owners as part of the planning process to
help develop sophisticated travel plans which use a range of media to get
information to fans. Again, there is little evidence of such initiatives being adopted
by stadium owners voluntarily. We recommend that TfL contact London’s stadiums
to promote its travel planning services and to name and shame those stadium
owners which fail to engage with what is a relatively low cost initiative.

The relationship between the various bodies responsible for matchday travel is
complex. The responsibility for and the costs of managing the crowds leaving
games depends on where the fans are on their journey between the stadium and their
home. Who should pay for these costs is a contentious question which many of
those involved raised with the Committee. We seek to start a debate about this issue
and, in the light of the evidence we received about the lack of involvement of
stadium owners, ask whether they should take more responsibility for what goes on
outside the stadium.

The Committee believes that matchday travel arrangements need to change. London
residents and fans of London’s sporting teams should not be expected to put up with
the congestion, delays and disruption that they regularly experience on matchdays.
Below we set out our vision of what a fan’s journey to a London stadium should and
could be like. For this vision to become a reality all those involved must commit
themselves to improving the lot of fans by taking on board the conclusions and
recommendations we make in this report.

Page 4 of 35
Our vision

1pm, Saturday, November, 2011. David and his daughter are football fans planning a
trip to a London derby with a 3pm kick-off. He remembers that his mate John had
mentioned that his football club has a new website where people travelling to the stadium can
see all the different transport options available. David visits the website and puts his postcode
into the journey planner. This gives him instant access to a number of alternative ways of
travelling to the ground, maps of the routes and train times. He can also see exactly how long
the journey should take. He decides to use a combination of rail services and walking.

2pm, Saturday, November, 2011: David has bought integrated travel and match
tickets from the home club. At their local rail station, David and his daughter are able to
swipe their integrated tickets on the electronic reader to get quickly through the ticket barriers.
When they arrive at the stadium they swipe their integrated tickets again to get into the
stadium.

5.15pm, Saturday, November, 2011: After the match David and his daughter decline
the coach service provided by the club that is ferrying fans to stations on the outskirts of
London. Using his journey planner information David decides to walk to the second closest
Underground station for their journey home, as it will be less congested. Stewards along the
route to the station offer directions and support the police with crowd management. When
they get to the station it’s very busy, but their integrated tickets, the station refurbishments and
the more frequent trains have improved access and eased congestion at the station and its
surrounds.

12.30pm, Sunday, March, 2012: David and his daughter are going to watch the return
fixture at another stadium in London. Having consulted the club’s online travel planner
David sees information about a club initiative to encourage cycling. He prints off the
recommended cycle route and cycles to the game with his daughter. When they arrive at the
ground, they lock their bikes up in the clearly signed secure bike area and are handed a
voucher for the club shop which gives them discounts on official merchandise.

Page 5 of 35
1. Background

1.1 Every autumn weekend in London about 250,000 fans travel into, out of and
across the capital to watch games of football and other sports. Fans routinely
encounter delays and congestion during their journeys. Crowds build up
around stadiums at the start and end of matches causing inconvenience to
local residents and delays for the fans. Roads around major stadiums are
brought to a standstill for the hours before and after matches, and rail and
Underground stations become overcrowded as fans try to leave the area and
begin their journeys home.

1.2 Fans described leaving games early to “beat the queues which go on for a
good mile just to get the train home”.1 Others said their travel “experiences
this season led us to seriously consider not taking up our season tickets for
the forthcoming season”.2 Residents were similarly vociferous in expressing
their concerns. One described being “obliged to put up with transport
disruption on a regular basis”.3 Another said that their journey home takes
two hours on matchdays because the congested roads block buses.4

1.3 These problems have been getting worse in recent years and are likely to
continue to do so. Since the 2001-02 season, average attendances at
London’s football stadiums have increased by 23% and total attendances in
each of the last two seasons have exceeded 5 million.5 The number of events
at stadiums is also increasing. For example, the new Wembley stadium is
planning to host 15 more events in its first full year of operation compared
with the last year of the old stadium. Furthermore, as the London Assembly
noted in a report in 2003, the longer-term trend of large football clubs
increasingly attracting home fans from areas beyond their immediate vicinity
is exacerbating the pressure on the transport network and heightening
tension between local residents and fans from outside the area.6

1.4 Experience from the new national stadium at Wembley shows that these
problems can be addressed, at least to an extent, by major investment in
public transport. Other recent examples provide lessons to be learned to
ensure that commitments made during planning negotiations for new
stadiums can be delivered. This report sets out a number of
recommendations aimed at ensuring that proposals for new stadiums, or
increasing capacity at existing stadiums, are accompanied by robust and
enforceable proposals to deliver a transport system which can accommodate
the increased numbers of fans.

1 Submission 92, fan.

2 Submission 121, fan.
3 Submission 01, resident.
4 Submission 02, resident.
5 http://stats.footymad.net/divisions/attendances.asp?divno=1&asid=06
6 Culture, Sport and Tourism Committee, Away from home, July 2003, p 4; Submission 26, Supporters

Direct, p 2.
Page 6 of 35
1.5 The report also seeks to examine ways of improving the travel arrangements
to stadiums that do not necessarily involve large capital investment. There is
potential to develop innovative approaches to stadium travel which can be
taken forward as London prepares to host the 2012 Olympics. Such
approaches need to include consultation with fans at all stages to avoid
unsupported top-down policies. Fans can be crucial agents for change and
getting them on board is important to the success of any new schemes.

1.6 In setting out new approaches to fan travel, we also seek to spark debate on a
question which we believe is integral to delivering a co-ordinated approach to
stadium travel: how should responsibility, and ultimately the costs, be shared
for the delivery and impact of sports fans’ journeys from when they leave
home to their arrival at a stadium?

2. Improving public transport

New stadiums

2.1 The most extensive opportunities for improving transport infrastructure are
afforded during the planning phase of new or re-designed stadiums. These
mainly arise from contributions secured from developers during the planning
process in the form of section 106 agreements (see separate box below).
Recent experiences at the rebuilt national stadium at Wembley and the new
Emirates Stadium provide useful lessons to be learnt about future stadium
construction projects and the associated development of public transport
infrastructure.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

The granting of planning permission often increases the value of land

dramatically but the local community does not necessarily see much benefit
from the disruption or loss of amenity that may result from that
development. In addition the local authority may find itself liable for
increased infrastructure spending on things such as new roads or schools as a
result of the development being granted planning permission.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows local
authorities to negotiate agreements with developers and requiring them to
make some form of commitment if planning permission is obtained.

A section 106 agreement (or planning obligation) is a form of contract

between a developer and local authority, offering benefits which otherwise
would make a planning application unacceptable. It is a mechanism for
overcoming grounds which otherwise would lead to refusal of planning.

There are limitations on the types of section 106 agreements that can be
negotiated and what can be included in them: it must be relevant to planning;
it must be necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in
Page 7 of 35
 planning terms; it must be directly related to the development and it must be
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development.

Section 106 agreements are used to provide the following benefits to the
community:
- Affordable housing in terms of on-site or off-site provision or commuted
payments
- Open space provision or environmental improvements
- Transport and highway improvements or travel schemes
- Community works and leisure including arts and recreation facilities,
public toilets or security measures
- Education developments such as schools or employment and training
measures

Wembley National Stadium

2.2 The new Wembley National Stadium opened in March 2007. With a
capacity of 90,000 the new stadium holds at least 10,000 more people than
the old stadium. There are also more events at the new stadium. In its last
full year of operation the old Wembley Stadium hosted 22 events. 7 In 2008,
37 events have been booked 16 of which are expected to host a capacity
crowd.8

2.3 Around £100 million was spent on transport improvements for the
Wembley area to serve the new stadium. The costs were shared between
various public bodies and Wembley National Stadium Limited, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the FA. This contribution was part of the funds secured
through the section 106 planning agreement with Brent Council. The
breakdown of costs is shown in the table below.9

Contributor £ million
Transport for London 43
London Development Agency 40
Department for Transport 7
Wembley National Stadium Limited 9

2.4 Improvements to the transport infrastructure included the re-development of

Wembley Park station serving the Jubilee and Metropolitan Underground
lines. This station was rebuilt to provide 70% more capacity to allow an
extra 15,500 people to use the station every hour. Wembley Central station,
serving the Bakerloo Line on the Underground and the national rail
Silverlink service was upgraded to provide a new ticket office and pedestrian
footbridge which enable the station to handle 12,000 passengers per hour.

7 Information provided by Wembley National Stadium Limited, 25 July 2007.

8 Minutes of meeting of Wembley Stadium Transport Forum, 12 April 2007.
9 TfL press release, 16 May 2007, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/5146.aspx

Page 8 of 35
 Platforms have been extended at the Wembley Stadium station serving
Chiltern Line trains, increasing the capacity by an extra 1,000 passengers per
hour.

2.5 TfL told us that the first FA Cup Final at the new Wembley in May 2007
was an example of “what successful planning, co-operation between agencies
and the right level of investment can help to achieve”.10 An estimated 75,000
of the 90,000 capacity crowd used the stations on the day. The work to
upgrade and redevelop the three stations serving the new stadium is
certainly impressive. On a site visit to one of the test events we saw the
police able to disperse the crowds quickly and effectively, in part, because of
the enhanced capacity at each station.

Emirates Stadium

2.6 The Emirates Stadium opened in July 2006 and is the largest club stadium in
London with a capacity of 60,000. This is an increase of 22,000 on Arsenal’s
old stadium and, as a result, over the course of the 2006-07 season an
additional 355,000 fans attended matches at the new stadium. Recent reports
suggest the move to the Emirates Stadium has increased Arsenal’s annual
turnover to over £200 million and that gate revenue at the stadium provides
an income of £3.1 million on average for each match, more than double that
of matches at their old stadium.11

2.7 The planning permission and associated section 106 agreement for the new
Emirates Stadium identified up to £7.595 million to be provided by the
stadium owners for public transport measures to accommodate the increase
in fans. These included improvements to Holloway Road Underground
station; improvements to, and enhanced capacity of, Drayton Park station;
and the Finsbury Park Central Area Project which included improvements to
bus station facilities and the arrangements for people changing from one
mode of transport to another.

2.8 As part of the agreement there was to be a travel plan developed in

conjunction with Transport for London which would help provide for the
efficient and safe management of crowds arriving at and leaving the stadium.
The stadium travel plan published in July 2006 also identified additional
measures outside the section 106 agreement such as capacity improvement to
Finsbury Park, Arsenal, and Highbury & Islington stations.

2.9 Over a year since the new stadium opened its gates for the first time, the
reality has proved very different. The Finsbury Park Central Area Project
has been completed and “a £300,000 contribution from the section 106
agreement has been sought” by Islington Council.12 However, the
improvements to Holloway Road Underground station and Drayton Park

10 Submission 59, TfL, p 6.

11 “Gunners cash in to top rich list and break £200 barrier”, The Guardian, 24 September 2007.
12 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, Appendix 1, p 3.

Page 9 of 35
 overground station have not been taken forward. Both stations have
restricted access on matchdays because they cannot accommodate safely the
demand from fans leaving the stadium. This means that two of the five
stations serving the Emirates Stadium are closed to fans leaving the grounds
on matchdays. The Head of Transport Planning at Islington Council told us
that although TfL plans improvements to Highbury & Islington and
Finsbury Park stations these are not expected to increase capacity on
matchdays.13

2.10 It is perhaps not surprising therefore that key stakeholders told us that they
consider parts of the development at Emirates Stadium to be wasted
opportunities.14 It also raises some important questions: why have some of
the high profile proposed public transport improvements not been delivered;
is it too late to deliver these improvements; and what lessons can be learned
from this experience? We deal with each of these questions below.

Why have some of the proposed transport improvements around the Emirates
Stadium not been delivered?

2.11 The answer to this appears at first sight to be a relatively simple one: not
enough money is available. London Underground prepared a business case
for the upgrade of Holloway Road station which indicated a cost of at least
£60 million. As Islington Council noted in its evidence, “the sum of money
needed to satisfy the section 106 agreement is … far greater than indicated at
the time the section 106 agreement was negotiated”.15

2.12 Similarly, work to keep Drayton Park station open on matchdays was
eventually estimated at just under £8 million. First Capital Connect told us
that this was “significantly greater than the £2 million available in the
section 106 Agreement and would require funding from other sources”.16

Is it too late to deliver these improvements?

2.13 No, but the prospects do not appear to be good. The funding available under
the agreement remains available until August 2011. The experience from
Wembley Stadium shows that where the costs of transport infrastructure
improvements are shared with the transport provider significant
improvements can be made. However, this would require a good business
case for further public investment.

2.14 London Underground said its business case showed that the benefit-cost
ratio of the work at Holloway Road station was poor.17 Islington Council

13 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, p 2.

14 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, p 2; and meeting with BTP, 16 July 2007.
15 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, Appendix 1, p 2.
16 Correspondence from Integration & Partnership Manager, First Capital Connect, 12 September

2007.
17 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, Appendix 1, p 2.

Page 10 of 35
 suggested that this business case methodology is skewed against justifying
investment in new transport capacity for stadiums because the additional
capacity is only needed on around 30 occasions per year. The Council makes
the case that the methodology should be revised to reflect the importance of
stadiums to the London economy and the additional costs to other parts of
the public sector, such as policing, as a result of not carrying out the work.18

2.15 Other options may be deliverable with the money available. Islington
Council told us it was working with Network Rail to examine further options
for improving Drayton Park station and this was “progressing well”.19 Time
will tell if this optimism is justified.

2.16 Certainly further help from Arsenal football club appears unlikely. The club
told us it considers that any “improvements to assist after the immediate
vicinity of the Stadium lie within the infrastructure of the transport network
which we cannot improve”.20 It is perhaps not surprising that the club’s
priority appears to be player wages. Arsenal spent £83 million on player
wages in 2005-06 with Chelsea being the only London club spending more.21

What lessons can be learned?

2.17 Clearly, a balance needs to be struck when negotiating section 106

agreements. The benefits that might be accrued from a developer’s financial
contribution need to be assessed against the effect on the local economy of
the development not being built should the developer decide to build
elsewhere. We have not examined the negotiations surrounding the section
106 agreement for the Emirates stadium nor its enforceability. Nevertheless,
from the information made available to us by Islington Council and others it
does seem that there are lessons to be learned for the future.

2.18 In particular, it is essential that such agreements are negotiated on the basis
of up-to-date, fully costed proposals and that the benefits and costs of local
stadium developments are fully understood. Improvements to transport
infrastructure should be considered at the earliest possible stage. Fully
developed business cases would identify potential funding gaps which could
form the basis of discussions with stadium developers and local authorities.

2.19 It is also important that the criteria for investment decisions by public bodies
are clearly understood. The stark contrast in the Wembley and Emirates
stadium case studies is not the amount of money secured from the private
developer for transport improvements but the amount provided by public
bodies such as TfL and the LDA. TfL was prepared to invest heavily at
Wembley but not at Arsenal. This does not appear to be simply a question of
TfL’s business case methodology. Both developments involve about 30 to 40

18 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, p 2.

19 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, Appendix 1, p 3.
20 Submission 30, Arsenal FC, p 1.
21 http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/UK_ARFF_2007_Highlights.pdf

Page 11 of 35
 events each year. It would be helpful if in its response to this report TfL
sets out the basis for its investment decisions in these cases.

2.20 Similarly, there is a need for a greater understanding of the economic effect
of new and rebuilt stadiums on the local and London-wide economies. Some
have suggested that the Islington Council was “desperate to keep the club in
the borough” during negotiations over the Emirates stadium because of the
economic impact of the club moving away.22 Without a clear understanding
of what this impact might be it is difficult to develop a coherent case for how
the social costs of such developments should be shared. There has been some
work in this area in relation to specific stadiums. For example, research
commissioned by the MCC estimated that the annual local economic impact
of major matches at Lord’s was between £26.6 million and £30.2 million.
The London-wide impact was estimated at between £25 and £29.5 million.23

2.21 In its 2003 report Away from Home, the London Assembly’s Culture, Sport
and Tourism Committee recommended that the London Development
Agency conduct an examination of the economic effects of football in London.
Islington Council reiterated this view in its response to this investigation
suggesting that evidence of the economic benefits and costs of new stadiums
would help decision-making about public investment in related transport
infrastructure.24

2.22 At least two London football clubs are intending to relocate and over the
next few years the new Olympic venues will be constructed. The difficulties
in delivering major transport infrastructure improvements around the
Emirates Stadium must not be repeated. As TfL pointed out, the experience
of people travelling to and from a venue is a crucial factor in the success of an
event. TfL argues that for this reason, “London will only continue to
compete [as an attractive and viable host city for major events] if investment
in the transport infrastructure is maintained”. 25

2.23 The Mayor will have a direct role in negotiations relating to new major
stadiums in London should he exercise the proposed powers on
strategic planning decisions set out in the GLA Bill, 2006-07. This
means there is an excellent opportunity to ensure that transport
considerations and the balance between the economic and social effects
of developments are taken into account. This will enable the costs and
benefits of stadium developments to be fully understood and decisions
to be taken which take into account the wider effects on London and
Londoners.

2.24 The key lesson from the Emirates stadium is that robust business cases
and costings must in the future accompany negotiations over section

22 “How Arsenal ‘bought’ a borough”, Evening Standard, 3 July 2006.

23 Press Release, MCC, 5 September 2007.
24 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, p 2.
25 Submission 59, TfL, p 6.

Page 12 of 35
 106 agreements. These calculations should take into account transport
considerations and the wider economic and social costs and benefits of
developments.

2.25 Developers should recognise the pressures their schemes will impose on
the vicinity of new stadiums and be prepared to contribute as much
money to infrastructure improvements as the financial viability of the
scheme allows. In return public bodies should take into account the
wider economic benefits that these developments will bring to their
areas and should invest in transport infrastructure accordingly.

Recommendation 1:
The Mayor should exercise his new planning powers when new or expanded
stadiums are being proposed to ensure that transport considerations are fully taken
into account.

Recommendation 2:
By April 2008, the London Development Agency should commission a study on the
economic costs and benefits of sports stadiums in London with a view to informing
such consideration of future planned developments.

Recommendation 3:
TfL should ensure that planned improvements at Highbury & Islington and
Finsbury Park stations increase capacity on matchdays.

2.26 Implementing these recommendations at the planning stage for new

stadiums would enable fully costed plans for transport infrastructure to be
put in place from the start. There are opportunities to engage the owners in
making a significant financial contribution through section 106 agreements
(provided they are effectively enforced), and there are occasions for co-
operation and discussion amongst all the stakeholders to make sure that the
transport needs of those visiting and living nearby the stadium will be
effectively met.

2.27 However, more difficult and complex questions arise when considering how
to improve transport to and from existing stadiums.

Existing stadiums

2.28 Some of the greatest congestion around stadiums after sporting events
occurs at grounds which were built many years ago and where the transport
infrastructure to support them is inadequate for the volume of fans now
relying on public transport. We received a large response from fans who
regularly attend such grounds. In some cases, these responses included
proposals for improving the public transport system around the stadiums
and, in the cases of White Hart Lane and Upton Park stadiums, we put these
suggestions to the relevant transport providers. The response we received to
Page 13 of 35
 these ideas to develop transport infrastructure highlights some of the key
barriers to improving the journey to and from stadiums in London.

White Hart Lane Stadium

2.29 Tottenham Hotspur’s ground White Hart Lane was built in 1899 and has a
capacity of around 36,000. It is poorly served by rail and Underground
services compared with other stadiums in London. The nearest
Underground station, Seven Sisters, is over one and a half miles away. There
are rail links to overground stations but services are not sufficiently frequent
to enable a fast and efficient journey away from the ground.

2.30 We received a large number of responses from Tottenham fans complaining

about the public transport infrastructure serving their ground. One
described the transport links to the ground as “the worst of any club in
London”.26 Another said the ground “desperately needed an Underground
station”.27

2.31 Many fans, Haringey Council and Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust
(THST) raised with us the possibility of extending the Victoria Line to
Northumberland Park Underground depot as a key way to ease congestion
on matchdays. London Underground told us that it had examined the
feasibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park. Studies
had highlighted a number of issues some of which are described by London
Underground as follows:

• The extension would limit the provision of additional overland rail

track space, which, in turn, would compromise the wider Upper Lee
Valley and London-Stansted growth corridor regeneration proposals.
• The only viable location for a potential Victoria line station at
Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks. This leads
to one of two problems, either:
− Large crowds of people on matchdays at Tottenham would
have to use the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge,
which could cause a safety issue, or
− A new footbridge would have to be constructed at
considerable expense.

2.32 London Underground concluded that it was unviable to extend the line. The
overall business case was poor and could not be justified when compared with
other initiatives London Underground has in its investment portfolio.28 The
Committee requests that London Underground provide details of the
full business case on extending the line to Northumberland Park
including the total cost of the proposed footbridge.

26 Submission 69, fan.

27 Submission 65, fan.
28 Letter from Chief Operating Officer, London Underground, 14 September 2007, p 5.

Page 14 of 35
2.33 Tottenham Hotspur informed the Committee that it is keen to stay at White
Hart Lane and is conducting a review of transport arrangements to the
ground.29 It is hoped this will address at least some of the fans’ concerns
about matchday transport and we urge TfL and One Rail to work with the
club in its review.

Upton Park Stadium

2.34 Similar issues are faced at Upton Park the stadium of West Ham United since
1904. Unlike White Hart Lane, there is an Underground station close to the
ground but capacity at the station does not enable fans to leave the area
quickly. Reliable data on the number of people entering Upton Park station
after a match is not available but anecdotal evidence suggests that queues of
300 to 400 yards at the station are not uncommon and those at the end of the
queue can wait for well over an hour to enter the station. These problems
have significantly increased since the capacity at the ground was increased to
36,000. West Ham United told us that it believes improvement to this
station is the “single most important factor in improving travel
arrangements” for fans visiting its stadium.30

2.35 London Underground told us that it has been in discussion with Newham
Council and West Ham United about matchday congestion since 2000.
Several potential solutions were evaluated and one of these was costed at
£1.3 million in December 2003. The plans were not developed further at
this stage as London Underground did not have the funds and external
funding from Newham Council or the club was not available.31

2.36 West Ham United was granted planning permission to alter its East Stand in
2005 and included in the consent was a section 106 contribution to “fund
incremental improvements up to a maximum of £950,000”.32 London
Underground told us it had agreed to pursue the proposals further when the
funding becomes available.33 This now seems unlikely as the club has said it
is pursuing an alternative option of relocating from its Upton Park stadium.34

2.37 We recognise that there are significant calls on the money available for
investment in transport infrastructure. Even if the revised business
case methodology we propose in the previous section were to be applied
the proposed changes at Upton Park and White Hart Lane might not be
viable or the available funding would be insufficient. West Ham
United’s change of plan to relocate instead of developing its existing
ground also highlights the risk to the public sector of investing heavily
in transport infrastructure to serve one development.

29 Submission 83, Tottenham Hotspur FC, p 2.

30 Submission 37, West Ham United FC.
31 Letter from Chief Operating Officer, London Underground, 14 September 2007, p 6.
32 Letter from Chief Operating Officer, London Underground, 14 September 2007, p 6.
33 Letter from Chief Operating Officer, London Underground, 14 September 2007, p 6.
34 http://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=122723

Page 15 of 35
3. Easing congestion for fans and local residents
3.1 So where does this leave the fans whose journeys home are delayed and
congested and the local residents whose lives are blighted by large numbers
of people still in the area hours after a match has ended? The evidence we
have received has led us to conclude that there are institutional barriers to
improving transport infrastructure serving stadiums and to identifying other
potentially effective solutions to the problems we have identified.

3.2 The final section of this report seeks to start a debate about where
responsibility for fans’ journeys should lie. Resolution of this issue is
important for overcoming some of the barriers to transport investment we
have identified. But this is not just about new stations and extending lines.
In this section we examine existing good practice from home and abroad
which can ease congestion and speed up fans’ journeys without major
investment. If applied across London in the ways we recommend these could
vastly improve the travelling experience of fans and therefore local residents.

3.3 Obviously, some congestion at the end of a sporting event attended by large
numbers of people cannot be completely avoided. As Transport for London
put it “where thousands of fans – the equivalent of a small town - are leaving
a stadium at the same time, it is inevitable that there will be some waiting
time at stations”.35 Figures provided to the Committee by London
Underground suggest that most Underground stations near stadiums
continue to accommodate higher than average passenger numbers over an
hour after a match has finished.36

3.4 We received evidence from a number of residents’ groups and others about
the effect of this influx of people on their lives particularly when fans drive to
games. Haringey Council told us “for residents it is like being under siege
when Spurs play at home”.37 Cars block residential streets and the roads
around major stadiums are often gridlocked for long periods after the end of
games. Large numbers of fans similarly expressed their frustration about
traffic congestion after a game.

3.5 Based on the evidence we received highlighting good practice in London and
elsewhere, we believe there are some measures which, if adopted, could ease
congestion on the roads and on public transport before and after stadium
events. These are often relatively low cost options compared with the costs
of upgrading lines and stations and can encourage fans to use more
sustainable forms of transport than their cars. These include the provision of
detailed information for fans, measures to discourage car use such as
controlled parking zones, and integrated ticketing.

35 Submission 59, TfL, p 5.

36 Information provided by TfL, 14 August 2007.
37 Submission 27, London Borough of Haringey.

Page 16 of 35
 Travel information and travel planning

3.6 Detailed travel information setting out the various public transport options
available can play a major part in encouraging fans to use the quickest routes
away from stadiums at the end of a game. It can also encourage modal shift
by discouraging car use.

3.7 We received evidence from fans who said they were given very little
information about the options available some of which may not be signposted
or widely known. For example, East Ham and Plaistow Underground
stations are both only slightly over one mile from West Ham United’s Upton
Park stadium. Fans who walk to these stations can be on a train within half
an hour of the end of the match compared with an often far longer queue at
Upton Park station. Similarly, one Tottenham fan said that there were
perfectly good transport links to the ground and “if more effort was made to
educate people to the different routes that can be taken to and from the
ground then things would be easier”.38

3.8 The provision of clear signage to and from all stations near stadiums is a
relatively low cost way to tell fans of the alternative routes available to get to
and from matches. The MCC informed us that as a means of reducing the
pressure on St John’s Wood, the main Underground station used by fans to
get to Lord’s Cricket Ground, it is seeking to introduce a signage scheme to
and from the less used stations that serve the ground such as Marylebone,
Baker Street and Warwick Avenue stations.39 However, good signage is only
one source of the information that can be made available to people travelling
to stadiums which might influence their transport decisions.

3.9 TfL offers a service to support stadiums in developing bespoke travel plans
to encourage visitors to use a range of methods of transport.40 Where this
has been used there have been very encouraging results in terms of
discouraging car use and ensuring fans use the most efficient public transport
routes when they travel home. For example, although we were disappointed
by the progress with transport infrastructure improvements at the Emirates
Stadium, the work at the stadium on information provision and travel
planning provides an excellent example of what can be achieved when clubs
work with transport providers and the local borough.

3.10 As part of its section 106 agreement, Arsenal was obliged to ensure less than
20% of fans travel to the stadium by car.41 Information provided by the club
through its website, in matchday programmes and in signage around the
ground has helped to ensure this target has been met.42 A parking restriction

38 Submission 67, fan.

39 Submission 62, MCC.
40 Submission 59, TfL, p 2.
41 This target would decrease to 12% if Holloway Road Underground station were to be open on

matchdays.
42 According to preliminary research available on Islington Council’s website:

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Leisure/arsenal_new/LiaisonCommittee/liaison_committee_two.asp
Page 17 of 35
 zone around the stadium, paid for by the club, has also helped to discourage
car use. Similarly, the National Stadium at Wembley is promoted as a public
transport destination and only limited car parking is available. The RFU
funds a matchday controlled parking zone on the streets around Twickenham
stadium and Hounslow Council and the RFU are conducting a survey of
residents to consider the possibility of extending the zone.

3.11 The Emirates stadium and the National Stadium at Wembley have worked
with TfL to provide integrated journey planners on their websites. These
enable fans to explore different options for travelling to the ground from
their home addresses. Both stadiums also disseminate detailed information
through match programmes and with tickets.

3.12 Both these stadiums have adopted a ‘scattergun approach’ to providing

information. Supporters Direct highlighted this approach as necessary to
reach as many supporters as possible.43 However very few stadium owners
or transport providers are using the wealth of fan media out there such as
matchday programmes, fanzines, online message boards or fan sites to
contact fans about travel arrangements unless there is an obligation to do so
as part of a planning application. In fact, many stadiums in London fail to
direct fans to information provided by TfL which would help fans plan their
journey by public transport and may discourage them from driving to
matches.

3.13 We examined the travel information made available by 17 London stadiums

on their websites.44 Less than half contained a link to TfL’s online Journey
Planner which enables people travelling around London to explore different
options for travelling between two places. One third of the stadium websites
emphasised directions for car drivers in their travel sections even though all
are served by public transport.

3.14 The information being provided by Wembley and Emirates stadiums goes
some way to develop an approach advocated by Supporters Direct whereby
fans are treated as individuals and not simply as part of a law and order
problem which needs to be managed.45 Successful travel plans need to
involve fans from the beginning. Supporters Direct told us that transport
strategies need to be based on real fan experiences and to be successful need
to achieve fan buy-in and provide them with a sense of ownership and
involvement.46 We saw little evidence that fans were being consulted or
involved in transport planning by stadium owners and transport
providers.

3.15 One of the aims of TfL’s travel planning work is to encourage sustainable
forms of transport such as walking and cycling. Again, unless liaison with

43 Rapporteur meeting with Supporters Direct, 28 August 2007.

44 See Appendix 1 showing a map of the London stadiums that were examined.
45 Rapporteur Meeting with Supporters Direct, 28 August 2007.
46 Submission 26, Supporters Direct, p 2.

Page 18 of 35
 TfL was required as part of a planning application we found that stadiums
did little to promote these forms of transport.

Promoting walking and cycling

3.16 Encouraging fans to walk and cycle to London’s stadiums could reduce
pressure on public transport and local roads and promote healthier lifestyles
amongst supporters. As Supporters Direct notes “football’s power to reach
people who traditional methods have failed is well-known”.47 Sustrans, a
sustainable transport charity, believes that while it is important to increase
the use of public transport by fans any increased “levels of walking and
cycling, often as part of a multi-modal journey, will offer a number of
important benefits”.48 It went on to argue that “identifying public transport
hubs within a two mile radius of the venue and constructing clear and
prioritised routes to these hubs, will help to clear congestion in the stadium
vicinity.”49

3.17 Evidence from outside London has shown that such initiatives can work.
There was a successful programme to encourage supporters to walk and
cycle during the 2006 Football World Cup in Germany. This campaign
included safe and easy-to-use cycle facilities, well signed routes, secure cycle
parking, a map showing the routes to the grounds and a marketing campaign
using billboards, posters, a website and other media. Closer to home,
Southampton FC provide storage for 420 cycle places and this facility is
regularly used. Exeter City has organised special events with incentives for
fans to cycle to the game.

3.18 Of the 17 stadiums we looked at as part of this study, only the websites of the
Emirates Stadium and the National Stadium at Wembley mentioned walking
and cycling as travel options. Even where measures to promote cycling to
London stadiums have been introduced the evidence we received suggested a
low level of commitment. For example, the Emirates stadium was required to
provide 60 cycle spaces, representing 0.1% of the stadium’s capacity.
However, Sustrans told us that this has not worked effectively because it has
had limited promotion by Arsenal and fans find it difficult to access facilities
because stewards are not available to lock and unlock cycle storage areas.50

3.19 Successful travel plans, which promote public transport and cycling and
walking, will only work if clubs are involved and supportive. Clubs have a
large amount of information about their fans from season tickets sales and
membership schemes. Supplemented by survey evidence, as at Arsenal and
Exeter City, clubs can develop a rich evidence base about where fans travel
from and how they travel to the game. This information would enable TfL’s

47 Submission 26, Supporters Direct, p 6.

48 Submission 32, Sustrans, p 1.
49 Submission 32, Sustrans, p 1.
50 Submission 32, Sustrans, p 2.

Page 19 of 35
 Travel Demand Management team to develop individualised travel plans for
fans. It can also be used to encourage initiatives such as car sharing.

3.20 Unfortunately, the evidence we received from clubs as part of this

investigation suggests the clubs are unlikely to contribute to innovative
schemes to encourage public transport, and other forms of sustainable
transport, without some form of compulsion. Apart from the opportunities
afforded through the planning system, one potential way in which clubs can
be made to engage with these issues is through the borough safety certificate.
The local authority for the area in which the relevant sports ground is
situated issues safety certificates. Stadiums cannot operate without one.

Recommendation 4:
Stadiums owners should make a clear commitment in their response to this report
to developing and delivering ambitious travel plans, including devoting some of
their own resources to some of the measures required.

Recommendation 5:
TfL should write to each stadium in London promoting its travel planning service
and offering to provide the integrated journey planner used on the Wembley and
Emirates websites. TfL should report back to the Committee by May 2008 setting
out what responses they received and naming those clubs unwilling to co-operate.

Recommendation 6:
London boroughs should explore the potential for making it a condition of issuing a
borough safety certificate for stadiums that stadium owners prepare a travel plan in
association with TfL. We ask London Councils to report back to us on this by the
end of May 2008 including if necessary details of legislative changes required.

Park and Ride, coaches and shuttle bus services

3.21 Park and ride, coaches and shuttle bus services can also reduce congestion on
the roads and public transport in the immediate vicinity of stadiums by
dispersing fans quickly and encouraging fans to take alternative routes home.
A large number of fans, fan organisations and residents indicated they would
welcome such schemes. On a visit to Twickenham Stadium we were
impressed by a subsidised shuttle bus scheme which moved fans quickly from
the stadium to nearby Richmond and Hounslow East stations both about two
miles away. The Rugby Football Union has run the scheme at its own
expense for the last ten years and advertises it on matchdays to fans via
programmes and on signs in the stadium.

3.22 A successful park and ride scheme is operated during the Wimbledon Tennis
Championships using buses provided by London General.51 Other stadium
owners believe a park and ride scheme would be unsuccessful because of
51 Submission 51, All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club, p 1.
Page 20 of 35
 existing high levels of traffic congestion around the stadium. We would urge
stadium owners not to rule out park and ride schemes without taking into
account the reduced traffic congestion that may occur because of a reduction
in supporters driving and parking in the immediate area of the stadium.

3.23 Supporter coach schemes subsidised by stadium owners have also been
shown to work to reduce the number of fans driving to matches. For the last
two years Charlton Athletic has successfully subsidised a popular fan coach
scheme, the Valley Express, for home matches. It runs coaches for every
home league match to and from pickup points outside of London and carries
between 10 to 15 per cent of supporters going to the ground.52

3.24 These examples show that stadium-provided schemes, encouraging the quick
dispersal of fans away from the local area, can work effectively to improve the
experiences of fans and residents on matchdays. However, the small number
of stadiums operating these schemes at their own expense illustrates the
attitude held by many stadium owners about their responsibility for
supporters once they leave the stadium gates. This will be explored further in
the final section of this report.

Integrated ticketing

3.25 Congestion on the public transport system is often exacerbated by fans from
outside London who can be caught in long queues for tickets at large
stations. For example, fans arriving in London for the under-21s England v
Italy test event at the new Wembley Stadium faced lengthy delays buying
tickets.53 The Olympics Travel Plan proposes combined event and travel
ticketing where “the cost of travel within Greater London on the day of the
event will be included in the price of venue tickets.”54 This is intended to
avoid ticket queues and to achieve high levels of public transport travel by
spectators.

3.26 Integrated ticketing has been introduced successfully elsewhere. Fans

buying tickets for matches at the German football club FC Schalke can use
their ticket to travel by public transport on the day of the match. Similar
schemes operated during the 2006 World Cup in Germany. Both have been
successful in encouraging fans to use public transport and in reducing queues
at transport hubs.55

3.27 There is potential to use TfL’s Oyster card technology to introduce

electronic integrated tickets which would enable access to the transport
system and the stadium. For example, the smartcard system being
introduced at the new Emirates Stadium is compatible with the Oyster card
system. Arsenal is also exploring the potential for using its smart card

52 Submission 28, Charlton Athletic, p 1.

53 “Football talk”, Evening Standard, 29 March 2007
54 Draft Olympic Travel Plan, October 2006, Chapter 6, paragraph 6.238.
55 Submission 26, Supporters Direct, pp 4-5.

Page 21 of 35
 technology in retail outlets within the ground.56 It is therefore conceivable
that fans could use one smart card to travel to and from the ground, get into
the stadium and to buy food and drink at half time. Similarly, Fulham told us
that it was investigating the possibility of integrating the smart card
technology used for season ticket holders and members with Oyster Card
technology.57

3.28 We received some evidence indicating there are barriers to introducing

integrated ticketing. The Rugby Football Union told us it had raised the
possibility of introducing integrated ticketing on matchdays with South
West Trains but the train operating company told us it came “to the
conclusion that there is not a positive business case for this to be developed
currently.”58 It said it might revisit the possibility after Oyster cards are
introduced on its network over the next two to three years. We urge Rugby
Football Union and South West Trains to continue to explore this plan
further.

3.29 Yet despite the fact that the technology is available and there is
interest from the clubs there does not appear to be any immediate
prospect of integrated ticketing at London’s sporting venues. We see
no reason to wait for the 2012 Olympics. The technology is available,
or can be made available, and TfL and event organisers have already
demonstrated that they can work together to make Oyster cards
available to visitors from outside London before they arrive in the city.
For example, TfL offered branded Oyster cards to visitors to the
upcoming Tutankhamun exhibition at the O2.59 Similarly, TfL and
Barclaycard have launched a combined Oyster with credit card and
cashless payment facilities.60

3.30 From our discussions with TfL, it was clear that while there was
support in principle for integrated ticketing it was less clear from which
part of the organisation such an initiative would be led. Evidence from
representatives of Islington Council and Twickenham Stadium also
noted that sometimes communications with TfL on stadium travel
lacked co-ordination. Islington Council said “although we have always
found colleagues in TfL positive and proactive in tackling issues, no
single individual has overall responsibility for planning for public
transport access to … any football stadium”.61 Given the intransigence
of some clubs and stadium owners there is a case for TfL to develop its

56 Rapporteur meeting with Supporters Direct, 28 August 2007.

57 Submission 125, Fulham FC, p 1.
58 Correspondence from Commercial Timetable Manager, South West Trains, 7 September 2007.
59 “First ever branded Oyster Card set to transport visitors to ancient Egypt”, TfL press release, 28

August 2007.
60 “3-in-1 Card brings Oyster convenience to Barclaycard Customers”, TfL press release, 10

September 2007.
61 Submission 136, London Borough of Islington, p 11.

Page 22 of 35
 existing events management team to take on a wider role in relation to
stadium travel.

Recommendation 7:
TfL should work with London premiership clubs to develop electronic integrated
ticketing systems with a view to introducing a pilot scheme for the start of the
2008/09 season. Experience from this pilot should be used to inform preparations
for the ticketing at the 2012 Olympics.
Recommendation 8:
TfL should establish a specialist team to act as a single point of contact on stadium
travel issues by May 2008. We believe that such a team should have responsibility
for taking forward the recommendations in this report, including integrated
ticketing projects and helping borough to explore the potential for travel plans
being linked with the borough safety certificates. It should also ensure that future
TfL initiatives such as Legible London62 and bike hire schemes become an
integrated part of stadium travel plans.

Avoiding clashes between fixtures and engineering works

3.31 Clubs, fans, local residents, transport providers, the boroughs and the police
all influence, and are affected by, stadium travel arrangements. It is
obviously imperative that, as such, there are clear lines of communication
between the various parties. Unfortunately this is not always the case as is
illustrated by the frequent clashes between sporting fixtures and engineering
works.

3.32 A wide range of interested parties wrote to us about the effect of such clashes.
Fans described lengthy delays, missing kick-offs or missing connections
home after mid-week evening games. The British Transport Police, TfL and
the train operating companies were unhappy about the financial implications
of such delays and having to change planned engineering works.

3.33 An unrealistic expectation exists in some quarters, revealed in some fan and
stadium owner responses, about the priority that should be given to fixtures
when they clash with engineering work timetables. Many believed that
engineering works should be tailored around fixture lists. In the light of the
evidence provided by TfL and the train operating companies the Committee
believes that the reverse is more appropriate.

3.34 London Underground writes to all London football clubs each year detailing
its engineering closure timetable for the forthcoming twelve months.
Flexibility to move engineering works is becoming increasingly difficult
because of the scale of the upgrade programme planned for the next few
years. Although London Underground is able to protect major events such
as the London Marathon and Wimbledon Finals, protecting football fans

62The Legible London project aims to make walking in and around the capital easier through the
provision of street signs, maps and digital journey planning technology
(http://www.legiblelondon.info/)
Page 23 of 35
 from the effects of these works is more difficult. This is because of the
number of games and the potential for late changes. London Underground
believes it has minimised clashes this season as a result of work it has
organised through seminars and meetings to ensure all relevant parties are
aware of the planned engineering programme.63

3.35 Such careful planning can easily unravel however as the football season
progresses. The fixture list published at the beginning of the season is
developed by taking into account a complex set of factors. A computer
programme generates a draft fixture list based on international and European
matches, and police advice about clashes to be avoided. This draft fixture list
is then considered by a fixtures working party made up of representatives
from clubs and supporters groups. The final stage involves further
consultation with the police and the British Transport Police. The dates
agreed at the end of this process remain liable to change.

3.36 There is particular concern about the date of football fixtures changing at
short notice because of the demands of the television companies. Once the
fixture list is published, the games to be televised are agreed until the end of
November. After this, broadcasters need to give only four weeks’ notice of
their intention to change fixtures. No provision is made for transport
providers to be directly consulted prior to such changes and neither are
engineering work timetables automatically taken into account.

3.37 The effect of the demands of television companies on the date of fixtures is
exacerbated by clubs involvement in European competitions. For example,
the combination of televised games and its UEFA cup run meant that
Tottenham Hotspur played 11 of its 38 Premiership games on a Sunday in
the 2006-07 season. Eight of these games were played in London. Most of
these games were listed as due to take place on Saturday afternoon when the
fixture list was published at the beginning of the season. Sunday is a
common day for engineering works on the London Underground and many
of the Tottenham fans who wrote to us said their journeys were regularly
disrupted last season. It is not clear that the existing mechanisms for liaison
between clubs and transport providers take such factors into account.

Recommendation 9:
We recommend that the Football League ensures that the fixtures working party
takes into account planned engineering works on the London Underground and the
rail network when arranging 2008-09 fixtures. The British Transport Police
should make sure that these works are considered when they are consulted towards
the end of the process.

63 Submission 59, TfL, pp 7-8.

Page 24 of 35
 Recommendation 10:
We recommend that TfL should write to all football clubs in London once the
fixture list has been published to ask for likely changes to the dates of games and
immediate notification once changes are agreed. TfL should report to the
Committee at the end of the 2008-09 season on the response it receives from clubs
naming those which failed to provide timely and appropriate information.

4. Who should be responsible for the fans’ journeys?

4.1 Responsibility for transporting and managing the crowds to, from and at
London’s sports stadiums on matchdays, and meeting the associated costs,
involves a large number of public bodies and private organisations: the
stadium owners, the Metropolitan Police, the British Transport Police,
Transport for London, train operating companies, and London boroughs.
Who meets these costs depends in some cases on where the fan is on his or
her journey home. For example, the club meets the cost of policing inside a
stadium; the taxpayer meets the cost of policing on the streets outside. This
complex situation is summarised in the diagram below.

4.2 In some cases, the costs associated with these responsibilities are not
insignificant. Examples of costs incurred by the British Transport Police on
matchdays are:

• £145,819 for the FA Community Shield at Wembley Stadium on 5

August 2007
• £9,615 for policing a Fulham v Liverpool fixture at Craven Cottage
in May 2007
• £32,322 for Arsenal v Chelsea fixture at Emirates Stadium on 6 May
2007, requiring 103 police officers including dog handlers,
intelligence officers and officers stationed at key transport hubs such
as Kings Cross.64

These costs are recovered by the BTP from the train operating companies
and London Underground.

4.3 We also asked TfL for the net costs, taking into account increases in fare
revenue, of providing additional services on the London Underground on
matchdays. The information they provided is in the table below.65

London BTP Total

64 Correspondence from BTP, 7 August 2007, p 2.

65 Letter from Chief Operating Officer, London Underground, 14 September 2007, pp 2-3.
Page 25 of 35
 Underground

Emirates £5,200 £7,765 £12,965

Wembley £7,790 £13,173 £20,963
Metropolitan line £7,626
Wembley
Stations £7,626
Fulham £1,524 £7,765
Broadway £9,289
O2 £1,270 £969 £2,239

4.4 Similarly, South West Trains told us that for England matches at
Twickenham around 35,000 to 40,000 people pass through Twickenham
station. 66It provides between six and eight additional services between
Waterloo and Twickenham before and after the match. The company notes
that “the costs of operating these additional resources, plus the additional
staff costs are not inconsiderable and the revenue accrued from these events
does not always cover these additional costs”.67

4.5 Stadium owners and event organisers do not generally contribute to these
additional costs nor to the costs of managing crowds outside stadiums.
Generally it has been a long-established principle that the responsibility of
the stadium owners for the safety and welfare of crowds of people visiting
sports stadiums stops at the gates. The police provide additional officers and
support within stadiums, and outside the stadium they provide officers to
manage and direct the crowds.

4.6 Many of those who contributed to this review urged us to open up this
question for debate. The British Transport Police said, “the classic belief that
the event is over once the crowd has left the venue needs to be dispelled”.68
Hammersmith and Fulham Council put the point more directly, arguing that,
“the main responsibility for the safety and journey of everyone attending an
event should be with the organisation putting on the event, especially in the
case of football stadiums where significant money is made and the safety of
spectators seems to be ignored as soon as they exit the stadium”. 69

4.7 Similarly the Metropolitan Police said that officers were frequently deployed
to manage the queues at various sporting venues and their surrounding
transport hubs and that “this should be the responsibility of the provider of
the service”.70 TfL considers that it, the Metropolitan Police and the British
Transport Police have been successful in ensuring the large crowds near the
Emirates stadium are dispersed as quickly as possible but that this is only
achieved by allocating “extraordinary resources to manage the crowds on

66 Correspondence from Commercial Timetable Manager, South West Trains, 8 August 2007.
67 Submission 133, South West Trains, p 2.
68 Submission 53, BTP, p 7.
69 Submission 134, London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, p 2.
70 Submission 58, Metropolitan Police Service, p 2.

Page 26 of 35
 matchdays”.71 TfL goes on to argue that stadium owners should be
responsible for what goes on outside the ground.

4.8 Perhaps unsurprisingly, stadium owners do not share this view.72 Chelsea
wrote to us saying that whilst it encourages fans to use public transport and
works with other stakeholders to facilitate fan arrival and dispersal “fans are
responsible for their own transport”.73 This approach is evident in the lack of
stadium owners who have approached Transport for London in response to
offers of support in developing travel plans, other than when they are obliged
to do so because they are seeking planning permission.

4.9 The complacency and disengagement of some stadiums in the welfare

of their visitors is becoming increasingly untenable in the face of public
pressure and expectations that stadiums will take some responsibility
for the impact of their operations on local communities and visitors to
the stadiums. This is particularly the case with the Premiership football
clubs. Failing to engage with relatively low cost measures that could
alleviate the effect of their events on the local community is even harder to
justify when those affected hear, for example, that Chelsea’s annual wage bill
is £114 million.74

4.10 Supporters Direct argued that rather than attempting to recover policing
costs from clubs policing of citizens is a general responsibility of the police
and as such, should not be covered by levies on private institutions over and
above the precept paid by all businesses and individuals via taxation.
Furthermore, many clubs in London could not afford to make significant
contributions to crowd management outside their grounds.

4.11 Nevertheless, we believe that there should be a debate about whether

stadium owners should take responsibility for the safety and welfare of
their visitors and local communities outside grounds. This should be
informed by the findings of the LDA’s examination into the economic
contribution of London’s sports stadiums which we recommend above. More
evidence of positive engagement by London’s sports clubs in travel planning
and integrated ticketing might also help to reduce the pressure for change to
the status quo.

Recommendation 11:
We recommend that the Mayor, as the person with responsibility for the
Metropolitan Police and Transport for London, should examine the question of
whether stadium owners should take more responsibility for the costs incurred by
public bodies.

71 Submission 59, TfL, p 3.

72 Arsenal provides some stewards outside the ground as part of the section 106 agreement.
73 Submission 130, Chelsea Football Club PLC.
74 http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/UK_ARFF_2007_Highlights.pdf

Page 27 of 35
5. Conclusion
5.1 There will obviously be an increase in congestion when large numbers of
people are seeking to travel to and from the same location. Yet complacency
is endemic when it comes to looking after sports fans. They have often been
seen as a security problem rather than customers who should be able to
expect a decent service. Many fans who wrote to us said that whenever they
had tried to raise issues with clubs or transport providers they frequently did
not receive a response. Residents in surrounding areas feel similarly ignored,
often not informed when events which will affect them are to take place.

5.2 The vision of the future which we set out at the beginning of this report
probably seems a million miles away from the experience of most sports fans
in London. Yet it could be realised if this report’s recommendations are
implemented. Clubs, transport providers and other public bodies can ensure
that the complacency and institutional barriers which have prevented
progress before now become things of the past.

5.3 This report shows that more can and should be done to improve the travel
arrangements for sports fans in London. We believe that implementing its
recommendations will ensure that London remains a world-class location for
sporting events. The national stadiums for football and rugby are in London
regularly hosting fans from all over the world at top quality sporting events.
And of course we are only five years away from hosting the biggest sporting
event of them all. We need to make sure that visitors to these events
remember the sport and not their journeys home.

Page 28 of 35
Appendix 1: List of recommendations

Recommendation 1:
The Mayor should exercise his new planning powers when new or expanded
stadiums are being proposed to ensure that transport considerations are fully taken
into account.

Recommendation 2:
By April 2008, the London Development Agency should commission a study on the
economic costs and benefits of sports stadiums in London with a view to informing
such consideration of future planned developments.

Recommendation 3:
TfL should ensure that planned improvements at Highbury & Islington and
Finsbury Park stations increase capacity on matchdays.

Recommendation 4:
Stadiums owners should make a clear commitment in their response to this report to
developing and delivering ambitious travel plans, including devoting some of their
own resources to some of the measures required.

Recommendation 5:
TfL should write to each stadium in London promoting its travel planning service
and offering to provide the integrated journey planner used on the Wembley and
Emirates websites. TfL should report back to the Committee by May 2008 setting
out what responses they received and naming those clubs unwilling to co-operate.

Recommendation 6:
London boroughs should explore the potential for making it a condition of issuing a
borough safety certificate for stadiums that stadium owners prepare a travel plan in
association with TfL. We ask London Councils to report back to us on this by the
end of May 2008 including if necessary details of legislative changes required.

Recommendation 7:
TfL should work with London premiership clubs to develop electronic integrated
ticketing systems with a view to introducing a pilot scheme for the start of the
2008/09 season. Experience from this pilot should be used to inform preparations
for the ticketing at the 2012 Olympics.

Recommendation 8:
TfL should establish a specialist team to act as a single point of contact on stadium
travel issues by May 2008. We believe that such a team should have responsibility
for taking forward the recommendations in this report, including integrated
ticketing projects and helping borough to explore the potential for travel plans being
linked with the borough safety certificates. It should also ensure that future TfL

Page 29 of 35
initiatives such as Legible London and bike hire schemes become an integrated part
of stadium travel plans.

Recommendation 9:
We recommend that the Football League ensures that the fixtures working party
takes into account planned engineering works on the London Underground and the
rail network when arranging 2008-09 fixtures. The British Transport Police should
make sure that these works are considered when they are consulted towards the end
of the process.

Recommendation 10:
We recommend that TfL should write to all football clubs in London once the
fixture list has been published to ask for likely changes to the dates of games and
immediate notification once changes are agreed. TfL should report to the
Committee at the end of the 2008-09 season on the response it receives from clubs
naming those which failed to provide timely and appropriate information.

Recommendation 11:
We recommend that the Mayor, as the person with responsibility for the
Metropolitan Police and Transport for London, should examine the question of
whether stadium owners should take more responsibility for the costs incurred by
public bodies.

Page 30 of 35
Appendix 2: Map of London’s main stadiums

Page 31 of 35
Appendix 3: List of written responses

Information was gathered in a number of ways:

• obtaining written views and information from key stakeholders and
members of the public;
• placing an advertisement in local media requesting the views of local
residents and fans;
• contacting London football clubs to place article on their webpages
asking fans to send us their views; and
• including an item on the Assembly home page to encourage people to
send us their views.

A number of organisations provided their views:

Submission 06 Future Events News Service Submission 52 Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust
Submission 17 First Great Western Submission 53 British Transport Police
Submission 20 Park Court Residents Association Submission 54 British Transport Police Authority
Submission 23 Ferry Lane Action Group Submission 55 First Capital Connect
Submission 26 Supporters Direct Submission 56 London Borough of Lambeth
Submission 27 London Borough of Haringey Submission 57 Southern Railway
Submission 28 Charlton Athletic Submission 58 Metropolitan Police Service
Submission 29 Arsenal FC Submission 59 Transport for London
Submission 30 Arsenal FC Submission 60 Joint response from Royal National
Institute of Blind People & National
Association of Disabled Supporters
Submission 31 London Borough of Haringey Submission 62 Marylebone Cricket Club
Submission 32 Sustrans Submission 82 London Borough of Croydon
Submission 35 Charlton Supporters Club Submission 83 Tottenham Hotspur FC
Submission 37 West Ham United FC Submission 125 Fulham FC
Submission 40 London Lines Submission 126 London Borough of Greenwich
Submission 45 Rugby Football Union, Submission 130 Chelsea FC
Twickenham Stadium
Submission 46 London Borough Brent Submission 131 The Football Association
Submission 48 Cann Hall Area Residents Submission 133 South West Trains
Association
Submission 49 Joint response by the London Submission 134 London Borough of Hammersmith &
Strategic Health Authority and Fulham
London Regional Public Health
Group
Submission 50 Wembley Stadium Submission 136 London Borough of Islington
Submission 51 All England Lawn and Tennis and
Croquet Club

We received 88 written responses from fans and 7 from individual residents. Copies
of all responses received are available on request.

Page 32 of 35
Appendix 4: Meetings and site visits

Meetings
We met a number of organisations responsible for the travel arrangements of fans to
and from London’s stadiums:

• British Transport Police, 16 July 2007

Ian Johnston, Chief Constable
Alan Pacey, Assistant Chief Constable Operations

• Rugby Football Union, Twickenham Stadium, 11 August 2007

Richard Knight, Stadium Director, Twickenham Stadium

• London Underground, 16 August 2007

Mike Brown, Chief Operating Officer
Penny Hazel, General Manager of the Jubilee Line
Adam Osman, Stakeholder Communications Executive

• Supporters Direct, 28 August 2007

Dave Boyle, Deputy Chief Executive

• Transport for London, 31 August 2007

Ben Plowden, Programme Director Travel Demand Management
David Rowe, Head of Travel Demand Management
Matthew Prince, Workplace Travel Planning New Developments Manager

Site Visits
We visited a number of London stadiums in the course of this investigation:

• Wembley Stadium, London Underground, 24 March 2007

We observed police and London Underground operations at Wembley Park
station during one of the first test events held at the new national stadium, an
under 21 England v Italy match.

• Emirates Stadium, British Transport Police, 6 May 2007

We accompanied British Transport Police officers and observed their
matchday operations at Emirates Stadium in the immediate period after an
Arsenal v Chelsea fixture.

• Twickenham Stadium, Rugby Football Union, 11 August 2007

We met with the stadium director and observed pre-match and post match
schemes such as a subsidised fan shuttle bus service.

Page 33 of 35
Appendix 5: Principles of London Assembly scrutiny

An aim for action

An Assembly scrutiny is not an end in itself. It aims for action to achieve
improvement.

Independence
An Assembly scrutiny is conducted with objectivity; nothing should be done that
could impair the independence of the process.

Holding the Mayor to account

The Assembly rigorously examines all aspects of the Mayor’s strategies.

Inclusiveness
An Assembly scrutiny consults widely, having regard to issues of timeliness and
cost.

Constructiveness
The Assembly conducts its scrutinies and investigations in a positive manner,
recognising the need to work with stakeholders and the Mayor to achieve
improvement.

Value for money

When conducting a scrutiny the Assembly is conscious of the need to spend public
money effectively.

Page 34 of 35
Appendix 6: Orders and translations

How to order
For further information on this report or to order a copy, please contact Sarah
Hurcombe, Assistant Scrutiny Manager, on 020 7983 6542 or email
[email protected]

See it for free on our website

You can also view a copy of the report on the GLA website:
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports

Large print, Braille or translations

If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of this report in large print or Braille, or
a copy of the summary and main findings in another language, then please call us on
020 7983 4100 or email to [email protected].

Page 35 of 35