Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee Minutes by lonyoo

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 9

									Minutes: Public Transport In Outer
London Investigative Committee
8 January 2002 at 4.00pm
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assembly_meetings.htm

Present

Meg Hillier (Chair)
Roger Evans (Deputy Chair)
John Biggs
Jenny Jones (for part of the meeting)
Graham Tope

Also in Attendance

Paul Watling, Scrutiny Manager, GLA
Keith Sowerby, JMP Consultants
Sue Riley, Committee Co-Ordinator
John Barkley, South West London Transport Conference (SWELTRAC)
Bob Pinkett, SWELTRAC
Carol Rapley, SWELTRAC
Dr Tim Williams, Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP)
Jonathan Spear, TGLP
Tom McBrearty, TGLP
Sarah Clifford, Stockley Park Consortium



1.     Apologies for absence and Chair’s announcements
Apologies for absence were received from Andrew Pelling and Jenny Jones for only being able to
attend for part of the meeting.


2.     Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest made by Members or staff attending the meeting.


3.    Minutes (Item 3)

3.1   Minutes of meeting of 22 November were tabled for Members to take away and would be
      approved at the next meeting, along with all the other sets of minutes.


Romney House, Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY
Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002




4.    Evidentiary Session 4
4.1 Presentation of Communications Director, SWELTRAC.

       Members received a presentation from SWELTRAC (slides attached). SWELTRAC is an
       organisation which tackles transport issues from a sub-regional approach, but is
       concerned not just with infrastructure issues, but also attempting to change and modify
       attitudes and behaviour. For example, it was focusing on influencing young people’s
attitudes
       to public transport before they become car owners and attitudes were entrenched. It also
       focused on small scheme improvements such as improving transport connections with town
       centres, as well as major projects.

4.2   Members sought a view as to how SWELTRAC were using their partnership approach to
      working with TfL. SWLETRAC were working closely with TfL on a number of walking and
      cycling schemes and local area treatment projects based on town centre improvements and
            links to stations, as well as issues around Heathrow. Other common working schemes
      included     Thameslink 2000, the East London Line and Tramlink. It was described as a
      successful relationship, but one which also involved both the Boroughs and TfL in
      learning and adapting to their new roles. TfL were looking for exemplary work and pilot
      projects which SWELTRAC were also keen to support.

4.3   The Committee sought clarification on the comparison of priorities between TfL and
      SWELTRAC, and were advised that the overall objectives of both organisations were
      generally the same. Both aimed to reduce the dependency on the car but SWELTRAC
      had criticised TfL in the past for its approach in being too car focused.

4.4   Members asked how successful SWELTRAC were in securing funding from TfL and the
      Boroughs and were informed that it received no money directly from Boroughs but funding
      via the TfL grant system. In total it had received £11M over the last seven years, including
      £1M from London Buses, £2M from Railtrack, £1M from TfL and £1M from government
      funding.

4.5   The Committee sought information around the demand for orbital routes compared to radial
      and hub routes. It was difficult for any organisation to give a clear and accurate answer to
      the question based on any empirical evidence, and that it was a complex issue. Short distance
      travel oribitally was very difficult and alternatives to the car were often not realistic at the
      present time. For example, a journey from Bromley and Sutton involved one bus, three
      trains and walking, as well as purchasing individual tickets for each journey. The proportion
      of orbital journeys by car was high (above 50%) but did depend on where you started your
      journey and the quality of public transport available. It was generally felt that it was more
      appropriate to concentrate on developing links to hubs and town centres, which
      SWELTRAC felt had been reflected in the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy.
                                                      -2-
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002




4.6   Members asked questions regarding the importance of car parking and SWELTRAC’s
      overall      approach to the issue. SWELTRAC saw parking as a very local issue for
      Boroughs, and that        parking supply was an important factor in the success of town
      centres, although research had shown that it was the quality of the shops and not the cost of
      parking which influenced        shoppers’ choices. SWELTRAC were of the view that the
      type of parking available was         important and that long term parking supply should
      be squeezed to stop rail heading and commuter parking in local areas. Private
      non-residential parking also needed tackling. It felt that the traditional town centre
      competition with out of town shopping complexes was less of an issue in South West
      London, although the fear of such competition was always there.

4.7   The Committee sought SWELTRAC’s views as to whether they, as a sub-regional body
      were the best placed organisation to promote Borough issues. They were of the view that a
      sub-regional organisation was in fact one of the best placed bodies to do so as public
      transport did not sit neatly within Borough boundaries and that the rail industry were more
      willing to attend SWELTRAC led meetings than they would if they had to go to numerous
      meetings with every individual borough.

4.8   Committee Members asked what kind of journeys they would wish to encourage and
      discourage. Corridor studies carried out by SWELTRAC covered the true cost benefits of
      journey times, and the culture had been to move away from justifying the use of bus lanes
      because of the disruption to some car drivers. The approach was now more based on overall
      objectives and goals, such as improved access to town centres.

4.9   Constraints on orbital transport in Outer London were discussed and the solutions to those
      barriers. SWELTRAC stressed the current total emphasis on radial travel and the need for a
      package of improvements concentrating on major town centres. The River Thames was a
      barrier to orbital travel as was rail overcrowding and time taken up in road journeys. An
      extension to the Croydon tramlink, improved bus services and development of the South
      London Metro were all proposed solutions. Tramlink was low down on Mayoral transport
      priorities, but SWELTRAC felt that ‘hardened’ car users were more likely to transfer to
      journeys on trams, trains or tubes than they were to buses.

4.10 The Committee asked about the quality of interchange facilities. SWELTRAC’s view was
     that the main hubs were quite good but as you went further down the line usage became less
     frequent and safety and environment issues made stations un-welcoming. SWELTRAC
     supported the Mayor in his encouragement to the police to develop greater links with the
     train companies in an attempt to resolve some of these problems. The introduction of CCTV
     both inside and outside stations and increased staffing levels were all essential to improving
     the image of many stations

4.11 It was agreed that information was key to promoting all modes of public transport. The role
     of    planned evaluation was also stressed. The London Borough of Richmond upon


                                                     -3-
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002


      Thames had carried out evaluation studies of young people’s attitudes from primary to
      secondary school via a control group.

4.12 The Committee sought examples of good practice in local area treatment schemes. This was
     a fairly new concept, but SWELTRAC felt that the key to success was good partnership
     relationships, which added value and economies of funding. Mitcham urban village,
     Teddington town centre in Richmond, and Brentford station, were cited as examples of
     successful local schemes which included elements of regeneration, local ownership and
     quality improvements. Funding for these schemes included Section 106 money and TfL.
     SWELTRAC were trying to encourage train operators to increase both frequency of
     services, staffing and improved lighting on stations to try and address the problems.

4.13 Members raised the issue of how bus services could be modified for outer London.
     SWELTRAC felt that traditional approaches to service improvements based on
     infrastructure changes were not always the most appropriate. For example, the growth of
     Sunday shopping had led to increased congestion on a day when bus services were at the
     least frequent, and therefore bus companies needed to re-think their service planning and
     provision. Other less convential       responses to local provision such as community
     transport, dial-a-ride and demand led services also needed to be considered. SWELTRAC,
     and to a large extent TfL, could only lobby and influence the bus companies, but that it had
     developed a bus strategy in liaison with the Boroughs and in partnership with TfL. It was
     hoped that the bus strategy would be used as a lobbying, policy document. The integration
     of bus and rail services was one of SWELTRAC’s key priorities as well as improved
     information provision. Many train companies also operated bus companies and therefore had
     a good understanding of the bus industry.

4.14 (Jenny Jones arrived at the meeting at this point).

4.15 The Chair requested that SWELTRAC provide the Committee with detailed written
     evidence on city car clubs, including evidence from Switzerland. Sutton and Southwark were
     the only two London boroughs which participated in the scheme as part of a European
     initiative. Switzerland had gone from zero city car clubs to over 900 in ten years. It was
     estimated that one city car had the effect of removing five cars from the total system and
     reducing second car ownership and car ownership overall. In Bremen, Germany it had
     resulted in a 40% reduction in mileage. Such schemes also increased public awareness in
     public transport and other modes of sustainable travel. The biggest problem with the
     scheme in this country had been to persuade a private company to run it – Avis had been the
     only company willing to do so.

4.16 There then followed a discussion on the South London Metro and benefits of having a
     London Transit Authority, compared to the role SWELTRAC were currently undertaking.
     They felt that a Transit Authority would help the Mayor influence transport in London,
     although it could create barriers as well with increased ‘turf wars’. SWELTRAC’s view was
     that despite the GLA Act, the Mayor had considerable power in the area of transport and
     that he was currently using that power with the Strategic Rail Authority. The rail industry
                                                     -4-
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002


      mainly concerned with the large schemes which would take 10-15 years to complete, and
      shorter term solutions were needed now, for example, to tackle bottle neck train congestion
      at London Bridge which would then free-up capacity. The train companies were also more
      interested in long distance travel which was the most profitable and not short term journeys
      such as those carried out on the South London Metro.

4.17 The Committee asked SWELTRAC their views on Heathrow and its transport links. They
     responded by clearly stating that they had not taken a view on Terminal 5 but that it would
     clearly increase congestion. Heathrow’s transport problems were seen as a microcosm of
     problems facing London generally. The Minister had approved the building of the new
     terminal in the interests of the national economy but that the problems that created would
     have to be resolved locally at a London level. SWELTRAC proposed that the former
     London Planning Advisory Committee’s advice on congestion in London was that transport
     in outer London needed to be tackled first as this had the greatest impact on the centre.
     Heathrow needed to be developed as a major rail interchange with access from the south as
     well as the west. The Committee requested that they be provided with details of
     SWELTRAC’s ideas on proposed routes into Heathrow and transport solutions.

5.    Presentation by Dr Tim Williams, Partnership Director, Thames Gateway London
      Partnership (TGLP).

5.1  The Committee received a presentation from Thames Gateway (slides attached). TGLP
     stressed the importance of lessons being learnt for East London’s development from the
     mistakes made in West London in terms of sustainable patterns of growth. Their view was
that transport development should be part of a wider planning process for the future development
     of London as a whole. TGLP was a strategic partnership body which ran Single
Regeneration      Budget programmes and had also established an investment agency with the
London      Development Agency. TGLP was planning for todays’ needs and tomorrow’s growth.

5.2 They stressed the importance of utilising expertise in the Boroughs across London in
transport and planning, and the role of genuine partnership working. Areas of need had to be
linked to    areas of potential and opportunity physically as well as culturally and socially. For
example, the        further expansion of Canary Wharf should include the employment of local
communities. 80%          of travel to Canary Wharf was by public transport. Other areas of
strategic importance for transport links included Stratford, Barking and Dagenham, Woolwich,
Thamesmead, Royal         Docks, Belvedere, and the Greenwich peninsula. The quality of the
transport links also      influenced the kind of companies which were attracted to an area.

5.3    TGLP recognised that new development also produced local journeys and that intermediate
       modes of travel had to be considered as part of a hierarchy of transport. Their view was that
       the wrong kind of development would happen if the right kind of transport was not in place.
       Development and growth would happen in east London regardless of whether it was
initiated    by the public/private sector, but that it was important that growth be steered in the
right direction in a sustainable manner.



                                                     -5-
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002


5.4 River crossing proposals were being supported by the private sector, with discussions
underway as to how tolls from the Dartford Crossing could be used to fund further river
crossings. TfL      supported the idea of utilising tolls from new and existing crossings as funding.
TGLP felt that      river crossings needed to be identified as a transport priority and backed up by
political will.     These crossings may also need to include road crossings as well as public
transport. Areas of        growth in the east needed to be accessible to the poorest communities on
both sides of the river. TGLP did not take an ideological view of car transport as a form of
travel but considered all modes of transport within the context of accessibility and regeneration.
       Thamesmead was identified as an area which needed a river road crossing to Barking. It was
       anticipated that 40-50,000 jobs would be created with any new crossing, and that there was
       less environmental damage caused by a road river crossing than longer, orbital journeys.

5.5   Jenny Jones suggested that alternatives to road-river crossings should be developed and that
      there had been no independent report had been carried out on this issue. TGLP referred the
      Committee to the report by English Partnerships which they believed understated the
      economic impact and potential scale of development. They felt that sustainable development
      was always the objective but that there was a spectrum in the debate which included road
      development in the context of public transport.

5.6  A range of travel needs had to be considered, including further extensions to the Docklands
     Light Railway to Woolwich, and the development of Crossrail and Thames Gateway transit.
For example, City Airport was almost entirely accessed by road at present but by 2004 would
have a DLR station. The importance of the East London Transit Scheme was highlighted as
making     links between local areas and inland, for example Ilford to Royal Docks.

5.7   East London had a high dependency on the car as the most common form of transport and
      therefore quality alternatives needed to be made available to ensure people made the switch.
      The promotion of orbital travel and southward travel was therefore essential.

5.8   TGLP referred Members to their recent study tour to Lyon to see the largest integrated
      trolleybus network system in Europe. It also had the largest bus research facility. The
quality      of design of buses and the quality of service provided were all important to
encouraging bus use, which was often seen as the least attractive mode of transport.

5.9  The Committee asked if TGLP had limited funding for a project, would they downgrade
     vehicles or reduce the service provided. This was a difficult question to answer, but TGLP
said they would first establish the credibility of the system on a small scale first. They hoped that
           demonstration projects using trolley buses could be introduced.

      (Jenny Jones left the meeting at this point).

5.10 There then followed a discussion on the Channel Tunnel Rail Links and the benefits to the
local community in east London. TGLP supported the CTRL as crucial to the development of
       Stratford, as long as the frequency of service stopping at Stratford was high. It was
anticipated that up to 100,00 jobs and 30-50,000 houses would be created as a result. Links to the
CTRL          were also essential to ensuring the success of Stratford as a zone of influence.

                                                      -6-
                                     Greater London Authority
                      Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                           8 January 2002



5.11 The Chair requested that TGLP provide written evidence on their views on a London
     Transit     Authority, the South London Metro, Park and Ride, and their relationship with
     TfL.




6.    Presentation from Sarah Clifford of Stockley Park Consortium.

6.1 Members received a presentation from Sarah Clifford on the Stockley Park Consortium
(slides attached). It covers 440 acres of 30 different companies employing 7,000 people.

6.2   It was stated that commercial sense was the motivation for the businesses becoming involved
      in promoting more sustainable travel patterns. It was proven that measures taken to reduce
      car dependency attracted better companies and better workers because of the travel choices
      were widened.

6.3   Specific measures introduced to the business park aimed at reducing car use included:

         An employers bus subsidy which was introduced for two years to provide new buses and
          re-routed bus routes through the business park
         Personalised travel plans for 100 car users who lived on bus routes which were
          specifically aimed at first time bus users
         A car sharing scheme based on the internet for those who lived too far from public
          transport
         A cycling club (since 25% of employees live locally) which has 80 members who meet
          quarterly
         Awareness raising and information provision through a travel information website which
          integrates bus and rail information
         Reduced day time car use through on-line shopping opportunities and free lunch time
          buses to a local shopping centre

6.4   Key lessons to be learnt had included the importance of bringing businesses together and the
      development of local travel planning network to consolidate funding possibilities. Senior
      level support in businesses was also essential for credibility and success to any scheme. For
      example, the introduction of the A10 bus route had been collaboration between the London
      Borough of Hillingdon, British Airways and Heathrow. Stockley Park was also part of the
      Heathrow Transport Forum and other influential travel bodies, which was key to
      maintaining interest and profile. The type and quality of information available to passengers
      was critical in encouraging use of public transport.

6.5   Travel surveys conducted in 1997 and 1999 showed an increase in the use of sustainable
      transport (public transport use up from 10% to 12%, cycling up from 1% to 2%) while car use
      had declined from 88% to 84%. The Stockley Park Transport Plan commits Stockley Park to
      work towards reducing car use by 20% over a five year period.

                                                     -7-
                                        Greater London Authority
                         Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                              8 January 2002



6.6      Other private sector similar schemes, which were identified, included Glaxo Smith Klein on
the      A4 in Brentford, schemes run by British Airways at Heathrow, and Advisor in Sandwich.

6.7      The Stockely Park Consortium had no power to limit or reduce car parking on site as this
was      either under the ownership of the leaseholder or the local authority, although parking space
         numbers had been reduced relatively over time as the local authority included it as a part of
         the granting planning process.

6.8      Reasons given by employees for not using public transport included lack of reliability of bus
         services and ticketing issues, as travel cards did not accommodate mixed usage.

6.9      It was noted that the development of Heathrow tube station had now been changed to Hayes
         and Harlington Stations under Section 106 funding. A new bus route with bus priority
         measures and real time linked to Stockley Park was part of that development.


7. Date of Next Meeting
It was noted the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 30 January 2002at 10.00am in
AG23. A public seminar on public transport in outer London has also been organised with Capital
for 9 February and all Assembly Members would be receiving an invite shortly. Bus tour dates in
the Boroughs would also be released shortly.


8.    Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
None received.



9.    Close of meeting
The meeting ended at 6.45pm




Chair:                                              Date:

Enquiries:
Sue Riley
Committee Co-ordinator

                                                        -8-
                                   Greater London Authority
                    Public Transport in Outer London Investigative Committee
                                         8 January 2002


Committee Services
RmA127 Romney House
Marsham Street
London SW1P 3PY

Tel: 020 7983 4425
Email: sue.riley@london.gov.uk
Fax: 020 7983 4437 Minicom: 020 7983 4458




                                                   -9-

								
To top