Docstoc

Cabinet Member Report

Document Sample
Cabinet Member Report Powered By Docstoc
					                              Cabinet Member Report
City of Westminster
        Cabinet Member:       Economic Development and Transport
1                             Planning
2
3                     Date:   19 September 2006
4
5
           Classification:    For General Release
6
7
8         Title of Report:
                              City Council’s Response to Transport 2025
9
10
11
               Report of:     Director of Transportation
12
13
14
15       Wards involved:      All
16
17
18         Policy context:    One City and LIP
19
20
21
22    Financial summary:      It is not possible at this time to quantify the impact
23                            of the possible policy changes on transportation and
24                            parking budgets.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32         Report Author:     Richard Case
33                            Head of Strategy and Programmes
34
35
         Contact Details:     Tel:        020 7641 3398
36
37                            Email:      rcase@westminster.gov.uk
38



                                                                                   1
1     Summary of this Report

1.1   This report outlines the City Council’s response to Transport for London (TfL) on
      ‘Transport 2025: Transport Challenges for a Growing City’, which outlines TfL’s
      proposed investment priorities up until 2025.


2     Recommendations
2.1   That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport and Cabinet
      Member for Planning approve the proposed response outlined in this report and
      agrees that a copy of this report be sent to Transport for London no later than 8
      September 2006 as the City Council’s response to the consultation on Transport
      2025.

3     Background Information
3.1   On 23 June 2006 Transport for London published ‘Transport 2025: Transport
      Challenges for a Growing City’ (Transport 2025).
3.2   Transport 2025 has been published to start a debate on what transport
      investments are required in London by 2025 and to inform TfL’s submission to the
      Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR2007).
3.3   TfL would like to receive comments on the document by 8 September 2006.


4     City Council’s response to Transport 2025.

4.1   The central thesis of Transport 2025 is that if the growth in employment and
      population forecast in the London Plan is achieved, then the transport network
      will require significant investment to accommodate this growth. In particular
      employment growth is predicted to be concentrated in Central and East London
      whilst household growth will be spread throughout London, although with major
      growth in the East. TfL estimates that employment will increase from 4.6m to
      5.45m and households from 7.5m to 8.3m, figures which have recently been
      revised upwards through the GLA’s ‘Draft Alterations to the London Plan’ and
      associated documents. This will place substantial strain on all elements of the
      transport system.
4.2   The main challenge is how to ensure that rail/underground systems continue to
      operate and to minimise the increase in car use in outer London.
4.3   Transport 2025 identifies three objectives that TfL would like the network to
      achieve:
      o Support sustainable economic growth;
      o Improve social inclusion; and
      o Tackle climate change.

4.4   In addition it is suggested that Transport 2025 should be required to provide
      further detail of when improvements will be made, with particular reference to the
      Olympic Games in 2012 and address the needs and requirements of current
      users.



                                                                                      2
4.5    There is a danger that in planning for the needs of 2025, the pressing needs of
       now, 2012 and the run up to 2025 are forgotten. The document suggests that
       this may be the case and advocates increased reliance on the bus system. Any
       further increases in the number and frequency of bus services poses serious
       problems particularly for Central London and main bus corridors, if the existing
       network is not reviewed and revised.

4.6    Oxford Street is considered to be one such problem corridor, which already
       experiences serious delay to buses and bus passengers. A similar problem
       occurs at Victoria and other routes, notably the Strand. The presence of such a
       high number of buses and the amount of land required for the operation of the
       enhanced bus network causes serious inconvenience to pedestrians and cyclists.

4.7    The principle should be adopted that each use must not only justify its own land
       take but must also take account of how other uses are to be accommodated. If
       there is any increase in the number or frequency of buses in Central London,
       care will need to be taken to ensure that bus numbers on existing problem
       corridors do not become unacceptable and that TfL identifies off-street facilities
       for buses, rather than seeking more bus stands. Therefore TfL needs to
       undertake a review and liaise with local authorities to discuss how the operation
       of the bus network can:
                     limit its use of land/highway space;
                     provide effective interchange with pedestrians and other modes;
                     improve access;
                     reduce environmental and visual impact;
                     provide greater information to build on the success of the spider bus
                     maps; and
                     reduce the impact on residents and businesses.

4.8    A key priority is identified as tacking car use in Outer London. Currently 41% of
       journeys are made by car and in Outer London this increases to 50%. However,
       the majority of the issues outlined in the plan focus on Central London rather than
       on Outer London. Other measures advocated include delivering the improvement
       to London Underground required in the Public Private Partnership (commonly
       known as the PPP), improving National Rail services and new investment in rail
       and underground in the long term.

4.9    In order to address social inclusion Transport 2025 advocates the use of cheap
       fares and outlines what has already been achieved for certain user groups.
       Unfortunately, no assurance is given as to whether cheap fares for some will be
       achieved by increased Council Tax for all or higher fares for regular travellers and
       commuters.

4.10   The report advocates the use of the Low Emission Zone scheduled to be
       implemented in 2008, but provides little detail on what other measures will be
       required to improve air quality. This is likely to be a significant area of concern for
       the City Council’s residents and businesses as Air Quality is already a cause for
       concern.

4.11   Transport 2025 makes passing reference to improving the public realm, but this
       does not appear to be a high priority and appears to come after other priority
       areas have been addressed. Where transport improvements are secured, such

                                                                                            3
       as at interchanges, these improvements should maximize wider benefits, such as
       public realm improvements. Westminster has to date been working closely with
       TfL to secure transport and wider public realm improvements at key interchanges
       within the borough, such as at Paddington (PSPA) and Victoria. The City Council
       should continue to press for increased investment in the public realm in Central
       London and in particular between now and 2012.

4.12   The document appears to rule out road building as part of the solution. This may
       be appropriate, but there should be some scope for expansion of the network in
       certain locations when justified on environmental, social and cost grounds. For
       example, the localised widening of Edgware Road would appear appropriate.

4.13   Transport 2025 identifies three priority areas:
             Getting most out of the existing network;
             Managing the demand for transport; and
             Providing new capacity.

       However, the document does not provide details of how particular projects will be
       prioritized or implemented, which would be useful.

4.14   Getting most out of the existing network
       The investment in rail and underground can be supported although the growth in
       bus services raises concerns especially if required in Central London and
       particularly if other improvements are not completed until close to 2025.

4.15   Transport 2025 should make reference to the need to secure better use of the
       existing network and the modified lane rental scheme known as the “Idle Working
       Charge” being developed by the City Council with TfL, London First, utilities and
       other London Boroughs.

4.16   The ‘Idle Working Charge’ aims to impose lane rental when street works are open
       and taking up space on carriageways and footways, but no works are being
       carried out – ‘idle time’. If contractors and utilities work efficiently and quickly they
       can minimise paying any ‘idle charge’. They will also be able to avoid the charge
       at times of inactivity by plating or bridging excavations to keep carriageways and
       footways open.

4.17   The objective is to reduce traffic congestion and disruption through providing
       incentives for carrying out street works more efficiently and with less impact on
       pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It directly supports Local Authorities’ new
       responsibility to work proactively to reduce congestion under the Network
       Management Duty of the Traffic Management Act 2004.

4.18   A demonstration of the ‘Idle Working Charge’ is being planned for the latter part
       of 2006/7.

4.19   Managing the demand for transport
       TfL is intending to expand the role of demand management through both ‘soft
       measures’ such as travel plans and ‘hard measures’ such as public transport
       pricing policy and congestion charging. At this stage it is not clear that these
       measures will provide the relief required in Westminster, where a large


                                                                                              4
       proportion of journeys are already made by public transport, and could result in a
       failure of the system to be able to accommodate the expected growth.



4.20   Providing new capacity
       This will require substantial investment. In addition to Crossrail, Line 1 being
       implemented by 2015 and clarity on the future of Line 2 being provided, there is a
       need for substantial improvements to national rail, extensions to the DLR, light
       rail systems, the Bakerloo or Northern line and congestion relief to the Victoria
       Line/Piccadilly Line corridor. It is considered that these measures will be required
       and that early introduction should be encouraged. The definition of studies into
       these options and the preparation of appropriate safeguards all require early
       effective co-ordination with local authorities.


5      Other Issues
       Financial Implications
5.2    Whilst this report has no financial implications the outcome of CSR2007 and
       investment decisions made by TfL are likely to have an impact on the level of
       capital funding available for transportation schemes.
5.3    Furthermore, depending on the investment and policy decisions made by TfL
       there could be an impact on capital and revenue finances for both Transportation
       and Parking. At this stage it is not possible to quantify this impact.
5.4    The financial implications of the 'Idle Working Charge' will be assessed during the
       demonstration period. The charge level will be set to recoup the administration of
       the charge and the additional costs incurred in exercising the Network
       Management Duty and completing Strategic Road Network Notifications as
       required in the Traffic Management Act 2004 . Overall, it is expected that there
       would be no impact.

       Legal Implications
5.5    There are no legal implications arising from this report

       Staffing Implications
5.6    There are no staffing implications arising from this report.

       Outstanding Issues
5.7    The only outstanding issue arising from this report is that a copy of this report
       needs to be provided to TfL by 8 September 2006. In this regard the Director of
       Transportation will write to TfL.


       Performance Plan Implications
5.8    There is no specific reference to this within the City Council’s Performance Plan.

       Consultation
5.9    No consultation has been undertaken with Ward Members.


                                                                                            5
       Crime and Disorder Act 1998
5.10   The measures identified in this report are not expected to have any implications
       under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.


      Health and Safety Issues
5.11   This report does not raise any new health and safety issues.


       Health and Wellbeing
5.12   The proposals identified in this report are considered to have a positive impact on
       the health and well being of the community. A health and well being matrix is
       attached to this report as Appendix A.


       Co-operation with Health Authorities
5.13   The proposals in this report are not expected to have any implications under
       sections 26 and 27 of the Health Act 1999.


       Human Rights Act 1998
5.14   There are no other matters arising under the Human Rights Act 1998.


6      Conclusions and Reason for the Proposed Decision

6.1    The proposed response to TfL will ensure that issues of concern to the City
       Council are highlighted to TfL and will provide TfL with an opportunity to modify
       their investment plan in advance of CSR2007.
6.2    The Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport and the Cabinet
       Member for Planning are therefore recommended to approve this report.

       IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO INSPECT
       ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS, PLEASE CONTACT RICHARD CASE
       ON 020 7641 3398; EMAIL ADDRESS rcase@westminster.gov.uk ; FAX
       NUMBER 020 7641 2658


       Glossary of Abbreviations used in this report.

       PPP                 Public Private Partnership
       CSR2007             Comprehensive Spending Review 2007
       TfL                 Transport for London
       Transport 2025      ‘Transport 2025: Transport Challenges for a Growing City’
                           published by TfL on 23 June 2006




                                                                                        6
BACKGROUND PAPERS

The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: -

1. - Transport 2025: Transport Challenges for a Growing City’ published by TfL
   on 23 June 2006




                                                                            7
For completion by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport

Declaration of Interest

   I have no interest to declare in respect of this report

    Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………

    NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and
         Transport

   I have to declare an interest

    State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………

    ………………………………………………………………………………..

    Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………

    NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and
         Transport

(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)

For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled:
City Council’s Response to Transport 2025.

Signed ………………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport

Date …………………………………………………

If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with
your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your
comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for
processing.

Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the
Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls
within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days
have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to
decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
For completion by the Cabinet Member for Planning

Declaration of Interest

   I have no interest to declare in respect of this report

    Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………

    NAME: Councillor Robert Davis, DL, Cabinet Member for Planning

   I have to declare an interest

    State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………

    ………………………………………………………………………………..

    Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………

    NAME: Councillor Robert Davis, DL, Cabinet Member for Planning

(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)

For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled:
City Council’s Response to Transport 2025.

Signed ………………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Planning

Date …………………………………………………

If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with
your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your
comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for
processing.

Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the
Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls
within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days
have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to
decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
Appendix A- Health and Wellbeing Matrix

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:7/10/2012
language:
pages:12