Chapter 5 08 05 001.indd by jizhen1947

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 156

									        5
Chapter 4                   PROPOSALS FOR ADDRESSING PRIORITY
                            AREAS OF THE MAYOR`S TRANSPORT
                            STRATEGY



Introduction
5.1   In this chapter the Council systematically describes its transport proposals
      and the way in which these support the priorities of the Mayor’s Transport
      Strategy. A short overview of the proposals, in terms of activities and projects,
      and the way they complement each other over the period to 2011 is provided
      first. The bulk of the chapter expands on the proposals, largely through use of
      proposal delivery forms which provide the ‘what, where and when’ detail and
      the anticipated cost for the proposal. Proposals are mainly for a programme of
      work that can be described on a single form. Substantial one-off schemes costing
      more than £100,000 have proposal delivery forms in their own right. One area
      based scheme in Tolworth, potentially costing over £2m, is identified with its
      approximate expenditure implications over the years but is subject to a scheme
      selection and justification stage. This ‘Step 1’ pro-forma has been submitted
      separately to TfL.
5.2   The chapter concludes with a proposal summary sheet specifically indexing and
      relating the proposals to each of the relevant MTS priority areas and the London
      wide and Borough level targets. All spending proposals are in line with the
      Council’s policies laid out in chapter 3.

Overview of the proposals
5.3   The proposals include capital programmes, revenue programmes and, in some
      cases a combined capital and revenue programme. The general approach
      to proposals for additional infrastructure or assets is that the maintenance
      implications need to be factored into the relevant revenue programme. So
      for instance a newly constructed off road cycle track will create a maintenance
      requirement that is reflected in the overall revenue budget for cycle route
      maintenance.
5.4   Criteria used to decide which proposals merited inclusion in the LIP were
      relevance to the LIP objectives and targets, value for money and deliverability.
      This resulted in a strong emphasis on programmes that promote modal switch to
      public transport, walking and cycling and help restrain travel demand in general.
      However existing assets need to be maintained and the expenditure proposals
      include provision to do so based on consistent use of Asset Management Plans.
      Some elements of the LIP involve assessments from which a range of action is
      expected to result but cannot yet be described in any detail. An example is the
      ‘Parallel Initiatives’ project intended to apply successful approaches used on red
      routes to the Borough’s ‘A’ roads and busy bus routes (ref 4G.Pr18 in Mayor’s
      Transport Strategy).
                                                                                5.1
Parallel Initiatives
5.5     As a response to the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Council will undertake an
        assessment of all of the Borough’s strategic routes in order to determine whether
        their use, by all stakeholders, is balanced and offers optimum efficiency. As a first
        step it was necessary to define the criteria determining strategic importance and
        then to identify those routes within the Borough that match the criteria. TfL have
        indicated their requirements for the assessment in terms of principal roads and
        main bus routes and these assessments will be undertaken first. From a Borough
        point of view there is a secondary network that also needs to be identified and
        included as part of a subsequent assessment stage. The criteria proposed are
        roads with all or most of:
        • Local distribution routes
        • Bus routes
        • High pedestrian use (e.g. Town centres)
        • Designated cycle facilities
        • Legitimate demands for parking and loading on or near the road by business
          frontagers
        • Sole access to important facilities like bus stations, car parks, fire stations etc
5.6     The secondary routes are currently being identified and will be available to TfL,
        should this be required, later in 2005.
5.7     The Council is now engaged in sub-dividing the principal roads and main bus
        routes into sectional lengths that best reflects stakeholder uses and the relative
        importance of that use. A ‘Route Implementation and Stakeholder Plan’
        approach, similar to that used for cycle route planning is likely to be followed. As
        well as considering volume of use there is a ‘hierarchy of consideration’ approach
        which recognises the sustainability and vulnerability of different modes. Results
        from the Borough’s review of cyclist accident locations will be a significant factor
        to consider. A parking and loading review will provide additional information.
        A prime task is to reconcile, or at least optimise, use of the kerbside lane
        where parking, loading, bus and cycle lanes, and general traffic movement all
        contend. On completion of this task, a prioritised schedule and timetable for the
        assessments will be produced and co-ordinated with TfL where joint assessments
        are required.
5.8     To ensure that the assessments are inclusive and the resulting proposals are
        justifiable under scrutiny, the Council will involve representatives of all appropriate
        stakeholders in the process of assessment, scheme proposal and implementation.

  5.2
      Appropriate representatives will be identified, as will the stage in the process that
      best suits their input and interests. Resource availability and management will be
      important in determining the timetable for the assessments and resulting actions.
5.9   The table below sets out the main tasks, target dates and responsible parties
      required to complete the regime of assessments for principal Roads and Main Bus
      Routes.


Table 5.1: Parallel Initiatives Timetable
      Task                                Target Date       Responsible
  1 Determine sectional lengths and       Sept 2005         Traffic, Parking, Sustainable
    priority of assessments                                 Transport, Assets & Admin
  2 Identify stakeholder                  Oct 2005          As above
    representatives
  3 Produce draft timetable               Oct 2005          Traffic & Asset & Admin
  4 Consult TfL and agree timetable       Nov 2005          TfL and Assets & Admin
    for joint reviews
  5 Make arrangements for initial         Dec 2005          Assets & Admin
    assessments
  6 Complete initial assessments          April 2006            “      “      “
  7 Review assessment process and         July 2006         Traffic, Parking, Sustainable
    fine tune as necessary                                  Transport, Assets & Admin
  8 Report initial assessment finding     Dec. 2006         Assets and Admin
    & problems requiring remedial
    action
  9 Undertake scheme feasibility          May 2007          Nominated Lead Officers
    and prepare financial bids

Expenditure Proposals List
5.10 Proposals are listed by the main transport theme or priority that they address,
     using the sequence followed in the 2005/06 Borough Spending Plan for
     convenience. Clearly many proposals contribute to two or more priorities and
     there are interdependencies between proposals. The order in which they are
     presented does not in any way imply a descending order of priority.

Infrastructure
5.11 The Council has comprehensive systems in place to assess the condition of its
     highway assets. Asset Management Plans are being completed to formalise much
     of the above and ensure a systematic approach to rectifying condition shortfalls
     and maintaining all the Council’s assets at the required standard.

                                                                                   5.3
        The RBK Highway Asset Management Plan is based on the following approach:
        i) Record what the assets are
        ii) Define their acceptable condition standard (fit for purpose)
        iii) Know what condition the assets are in
        iv) Define the maintenance regimes necessary to meet condition standards
        v) Determine the resources needed to sustain the maintenance regimes.

5.12 Expenditure proposals cover the following areas:

    Carriageways and Footways
        The Borough’s road network is being mapped using a GIS system, the base model
        being the OS OSCAR data set (corrected) with complementary layers for the
        NSG (pan-London level 3), additional NRASWA data, UK pavement management
        survey (UKpms) /inventory networks. In addition, work has commenced on a GIS
        Highways Terrier based upon polygons rather than centre lines.

    Footpaths
        The bulk of the Borough’s footpath network is made up of Definitive Rights
        of Ways. We are reviewing the Definitive Map and Statement. Survey work
        commenced in 2005, to be followed by the necessary legal procedures. The Map
        and Statement are being prepared and published using the GIS system. Once this
        process is complete other footpaths and walking routes will be added and the
        information made available on the Council’s web site.

    Road Markings
        The Borough already has its parking/loading restrictions mapped electronically
        and is in the process of extending this data to include white lines and other road
        markings. As part of the current rationalisation of traffic orders the yellow line
        data is being checked and updated.

    Other Highway/Street Assets
        In May 2004 survey work commenced to record all of the Borough’s street assets
        and some third party assets. The survey includes 59 separate classes of asset that
        contribute to the inventory. Approximately 60% of the survey was completed in
        2004/05 with the remainder being undertaken in 2005/06. To date there are
        82,357 items in the system.




  5.4
Road maintenance strategy
5.13 The Borough is guided by the TfL street Maintenance Strategy (June 2003) and
     has implemented a full (UKPMS) and analysis regime to determine the structural
     condition of its network. For principal roads condition assessment relies on
     coarse visual survey under the pan-London Road 2000 initiative. The Council has
     engaged the L.B. of Hammersmith & Fulham to provide the necessary SCANNER
     surveys and BVPI data for non-principal classified carriageways.
5.14 Surveys are undertaken between April and July and the analysed data is produced
     for in-house assessments to commence by the end of September. Areas identified
     as being above the intervention level are then assessed together with other
     locations of concern, to determine the maintenance priorities for the ensuing year.
     Currently the aim is to clear the backlog of works. Future years will see a trend
     towards identifying and treating locations that are below intervention levels but
     which, without treatment, would fall into the backlog category.
5.15 The Council will support the above with other routine/planned maintenance
     programmes, such as planned patching and the crack sealing of our many overlaid
     concrete roads. Consideration will be given to use of noise reducing materials
     such as micro asphalt/thin surfacing, and to the proper use of other available
     materials including recycled asphalt. The council also carries out its full quota
     of inspections to assess the quality of work undertaken by utility companies
     operating on the highway. This involves a minimum of 30% randomly selected
     sample inspections and 100% third party inspections. All defects are then notified
     and followed through to the completion of remedial action.
5.16 The main stay of sustaining the condition of white and yellow lines will be a
     routine replacement regime based upon a five-year cycle, supported by re-lining
     as part of the planned carriageway works and responsive works as required. For
     other Highway/Street assets most maintenance will be responsive. Those assets
     that require painting, e.g. bollards and guard rails will be subject to a programme
     of routine maintenance based upon five years for town centres and ten years in
     other locations.
5.17 The Council is introducing new working practices with contractors. This will
     involve longer-term contracts, based upon mutual goals, and will include agreed
     service targets and performance measurement. New contracts are programmed
     to commence in April 2006. Opportunities will be taken to make contactors
     aware of the Mayor’s Tree and Woodland Framework, and to agree how the
     prime task of the contractors can best be reconciled with protecting and
     enhancing biodiversity.

                                                                                 5.5
Local road maintenance
5.18 Detailed visual surveys are undertaken of the entire local road network in line
     with a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) with Government. This system
     delivers slightly different condition results compared to coarse visual inspection.
     The Borough wide LPSA 2005/06 target is shown below.
                                        2004/05 Result            2005/06 LPSA Target
     Non-principal Classified              14.0%                         9.0%
     Unclassified                          10.5%                         14.0%


5.19 In 2004/05 it was possible, for the first time, to produce BVPI’s 97a and 97b data
     for the condition of local roads in each Neighbourhood. The results are shown
     below for 2004/05 and the approach will be extended to footways in 2005/06.
                                        Non-princ. Class. Unclassified
     Kingston Town                         6.97% (14%)             9.08% (18%)
     Maldens & Coombe                      20.19% (44%)           10.17% (27%)
     South of the Borough                  25.50% (31%)           21.73% (42%)
     Surbiton                              6.93% (12%)              6.73% (14%)
     (The figures in brackets show the Neighbourhood defective length in proportion to the
     Borough’s total defective length)


5.20 The specific expenditure proposals are split between principal road maintenance
     and local road maintenance. The former includes for 2006/07 the carriageway
     and footway works listed in rows 1 to 4 of the Principal Road Renewal bid
     support form in the Council’s BSP submission. The latter covers a number of
     roads which are busy bus routes and thus of particular importance within the
     maintenance programme. These are listed on rows 6 to 10 of the Principal Road
     Renewal bid support form. Two LIP forms follow: please see Forms 1 & 2.




   5.6
Form Number            1                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            Planned Works Programme for Carriageway & Footway of Principal Roads
Location:                       Various

Dates:                          Continuous from 2005/06 to 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



Based upon annual UKpms survey (pan-London Road 2000 survey) which is managed by the L.B. of
Hammersmith & Fulham and based on the analysis of the survey data the structural condition of the network is
determined.

A priority listing is produced based on structural condition index value and a bid is made to TfL. TfL allocate the
funding based on the pan – London Road 2000 analysed results. Then the works programme is produced based
on the BSP allocation of funding.

Currently the emphasis for the planned maintenance programme is to clear the backlog of carriageway works.
Future years will see a trend towards identifying and treating locations that are below intervention levels but,
without treatment, would fall into the backlog category. Footway improvement and other ancillary needs will also
receive higher priority.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06        2006/07     2007/08     2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                              430            591          450        375          1846
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                            0            0            0          0              0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                 430            591          450        375          1846
                                                                   STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                    None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

TfL and Term Contractors




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                         MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                       Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                         Number (Appendix C)

Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair                                                            VIII              14              4G.Pr25 & 26


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                  Impact
                                                                                                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                              Neutral)
Maintenance is not intended or expected to have any impact on mode share.                                                                                     Neutral


                                                                                                                                                              Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                              Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                 Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                     Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                               Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                    Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Footway improvement will be especially valuable for people with mobility impairment.                        Positive
Form Number            2                                                     Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
                                Planned Works Programme for Carriageway & Footway Maintenance of Non-Principal
Summary of Proposal:
                                Roads
Location:                       Various

Dates:                          Continuous from 2005/06 to 2010/11

Description of Main Elements:



For non-principal classified and unclassified roads we undertake an annual DVI survey of 100% of the network.

Those areas that are identified by UKpms as being above the intervention level are then assessed by in-house
Technical Officers, together with other locations of concern, to determine the planned maintenance priorities for
the ensuing year.

Currently the emphasis for the planned maintenance programme is to clear the backlog of works. Future years will
see a trend towards identifying and treating locations that are below intervention levels but, without treatment,
would fall into the backlog category.

The Council expects to fund the great majority of the programme from its own resources but is seeking some BSP
funding for the Mayor’s identified “Main Bus Routes” that are not part of the principal road network. Improving their
condition is a priority due to their strategic importance and sustained heavy use by public transport vehicles.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06        2006/07      2007/08        2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0          241           100            0            341
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                        1,765          2,000        [2,000]*      [2,000]**      7,765

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                1,765          2,241         2,100         2,000         8,106
                                                                   STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                       COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                    None
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                  3,765         Approved                 Capital Prudential Borrowing
                                                                 Requested
                                                                                          Prudential or Council Funding
                                                  2,000*        (Internal Bid)


                                                                 Projected                Prudential or Council Funding
                                                  2,000**
                                                                requirement
PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

TfL and Term Contractors




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                         MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                       Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                         Number (Appendix C)

Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair                                                            VIII              14              4G.Pr25 & 26


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                  Impact
                                                                                                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                              Neutral)
Maintenance is not intended or expected to have any impact on mode share.                                                                                     Neutral


                                                                                                                                                              Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                              Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                 Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                     Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                               Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                    Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Footway improvement will be especially valuable for people with mobility impairment.                        Positive
Highway Structures (Bridges, Culverts, Walls etc)
5.21 The Asset Management Plan for Highway Structures in the ownership of RBK
     provides a detailed plan of activities such as inspection, assessment, maintenance,
     renewal and replacement that need to be carried out. The plan provides
     a comprehensive link between asset condition and the associated financial
     expenditure proposed.
5.22 Assets are catalogued in a spreadsheet (inclusive of all ownership) which
     comprises 266 highway structures within the RBK. Of these structures, 81 are
     in the ownership of RBK, the others are in the ownership of e.g. Network Rail,
     private owners. Distribution in each Neighbourhood is as follows: -
      • Kingston Town                 - 111 Structures
      • Maldens and Coombe            - 47 Structures
      • South of the Borough          - 35 Structures
      • Surbiton                      - 73 Structures
      Table 5.2 (overleaf ) provides a full breakdown bytype of structure.

Inspection
5.23 A six year inspection plan includes annual estimated costs as follows:-
      • Apr 04 - Mar 05        £51,000
      • Apr 05 - Mar 06         £1,500
      • Apr 06 - Mar 07        £29,000
      • Apr 07 - Mar 08        £2,600
      • Apr 08 - Mar 09        £37,900
      • Apr 09 - Mar 10        £3,500
      • Apr 10 - Mar 11        £95,700
     The Council will write to owners of the structures not owned by RBK to find out
     when they were last inspected, and their programme for future inspection.

Maintenance, Renewal and Replacement
5.24 From the inspection findings, the extent of the defects and repair costs can be
     ascertained and consequently the need for renewal and replacement determined
     so that a proper work bank of future repairs can be programmed and financed. In
     terms of bridge strengthening all but one of the bridges in the Borough have been
     assessed for their capacity to sustain 44 tonne loads (the latest national standard).
5.25 The expenditure proposals follow: please see Form 3.

                                                                                 5.7
      Table 5.2: Distribution of Structures by RBK Neighbourhood (inclusive of all structure ownership)




5.8
                                                                Structure Type
      District                Bridges                  Footbridges Subways   Retaining Culverts   Basements   Other Total
      Area           Concrete Mason/Brick Other                                walls


      Kingston             11          4           2       5         2           10      11           55        11   111
      Town
      Maldens &            4           1           0       17        1           7       6            9         2    47
      Coombe
      South of the         5           2           0       7         2           4       8            6         1    35
      Borough
      Surbiton             5           4           1       11       1            6       7            38        0    73


      Totals               25          11          3       40        6           27      32           108       14
      n.b. “other includes wharfs, buildings etc
Form Number            3                                                     Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES: Inspection, Maintenance & Strengthening.
Location:                       Borough wide in accordance with the Borough Asset Management Plan.

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



To Develop & Implement the Borough Asset Management Plan for maintaining Highway Structures.

Key Activities:

   Undertake an annual programme of inspections in accordance with the schedule of inspections to establish
   condition, identify routine maintenance needs, determine what needs to be done to correct the defects and to
   progressively build up a work bank of minor & major capital repairs.

   Undertake the strengthening of weak structures in accordance to its priority ranking as part of the London wide
   Package Approach. And whilst awaiting funding for strengthening, undertake the planning, implementation and
   maintenance of appropriate Interim Measures to keep substandard structures open to traffic whilst minimising
   the risk of structural failure by carrying out special inspections at regular intervals.

   Develop the knowledge of the asset inventory & condition in order to collate the information necessary to
   support the Condition / Funding Projection Model being developed by a LoBEG / TfL BCI Study.




TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                  2005/06    2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  335        387           453         634          1,809
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES:                                 48         51           54          60            213
(Details To Be Provided Below)

BOROUGH RESOURCES CAPITAL                                   40         60           50          70            220
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                             0          28            0          35             63
TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     423        526           557         799          2,305
                                                                      STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                     Approved)

                                                      63                 -           RBK Share of London wide BCI
TFL OUTSIDE BSP
                                                                                     Project.
BOROUGH RESOURCES REVENUE                            213            Requested        RBK Revenue.
BOROUGH RESOURCES CAPITAL                            220                             Prudential Capital borrowing.
PARTNERS                                              -                  -                              -
OTHER                                                 -                  -                              -
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LoBEG, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies: Compatibility of timetabled work on structures with smooth running of the London strategic road network. The RBK Traffic Manager will inform TfL where
work on a structure affecting the strategic road network is planned.

Risks: If possessions authorised by Network Rail are required this creates a significant risk of delays.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                               Priority Area      Target Number
                                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                                  4G. Pr25
                                                                                                                               VIII               14
                                                                                                                                                                  4G. Pr26
Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                       Neutral)




                                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:   Additional protection against vehicle intrusion onto rail tracks increases rail safety                 Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                              Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                        N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                             N/A

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                                     N/A
Form Number           4                                                     Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                      LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
                                Programme of Works to replace “At Risk” Street Lighting Columns on Non-Principal
Summary of Proposal:
                                Roads
Location:                       Various - Boroughwide

Dates:                          2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:




A total of 1,500 columns on the Borough’s non-principal road network have been identified as being beyond their
design life and “at risk”. The main risk is column failure and the obvious potential of damage/injury to road users.

This programme will primarily address the replacement of these columns. However, at the same time, we are
taking the opportunity to review the standard of lighting and signage provision. Where required, new lighting
schemes are being designed and implemented. These works are also being co-ordinated with the footway
maintenance programme.
The perception of crime and disorder, in many instances, is affected by lighting levels and a failure to meet lighting
expectation will result in continuing fear in people’s minds. This fear will perpetuate exclusion and hinder modal
shift to sustainable transport.




                                      FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06      2006/07       2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   0          0            50**          100**         150**
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                           550          500          500*            500          2050

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   550          500           550            600          2200
                                                                      STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                    COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

                                                                  1,050 Approved
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                   1,550           500 to be              Capital Prudential Borrowing
                                                                    requested
PARTNERS

*           Bid for RBK Capital programme made

**         Anticipated allocation from increased
grant if this becomes available from Central
Government (Lighting Board)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Term Contractors, EDF (Electricity Distribution)




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                          MTS Proposal/Policy
                                                                          Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                          Number (Appendix C)

Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair               VIII            14              4G.Pr25 & 26


Modal Impact                                                                                                  Impact
                                                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                              Neutral)

All modes except rail.                                                                                        Positive



                                                                                                              Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                        (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                              Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                 Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                     Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                               N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                    Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group                                                                             Positive




        :
Other infrastructure
5.26 Structural condition assessments have been undertaken of street lighting columns.
     As well as replacing 1,500 columns that are becoming unsafe the Council is
     taking opportunities to improve visual appearance of lighting and to reduce light
     pollution and energy wastage by choosing appropriate designs. The lighting plans
     also address the need to reassure pedestrians and support greater use of the
     streets by those who have concerns about crime and disorder. The expenditure
     proposals follow: please see Form No 4




                                                                              5.9
Road Safety
5.27 The Council has set itself more stretching targets than either the national or
     London Mayor’s targets on the basis of its exceptional progress to date. Table
     9.2 in chapter 9 spells out these targets. A long-term objective is to introduce
     low speed zones, generally with 20 mph limits in all suitable residential roads
     and shopping streets. That does not mean a blanket approach in which every
     residential road and shopping street would have 20 mph zones physically enforced
     by traffic calming features. It means that the Borough would move to a more
     systematic approach of assessing first whether, and then how, speeds should
     be brought down in these roads and streets. Where this led to proposals for a
     specific road or group of roads the residents would retain the right to veto any
     change if it was clear from the democratic process that the majority favoured the
     status quo.
5.28 The process of assessing whether speeds should be brought down ties in to the
     road hierarchy which classifies roads by their function and characteristics. The
     lowest level of the hierarchy is local roads and in most cases these would benefit
     from 20 mph limits of the self enforcing variety or camera based. The next level
     up is roads with important local functions. These connect at one or both ends
     to secondary roads and act as a distributor of motorised traffic from and into
     the dense network of local access roads. Some would be unsuitable for vertical
     traffic calming because they have bus routes or provide a regular or diversionary
     route for emergency service vehicles. If they have the sort of residential and
     shopping characteristics that merit 20 mph limits then other means than humps
     should be considered. That could be camera based or drawn from a toolkit of
     non-vertical options such as chicanes, narrowings, throttles, pedestrian refuges
     constructed to reduce speed or mini roundabouts. However these types of
     ‘horizontal calming’ measures have been found to be considerably less effective
     than road humps in 30 mph roads.1 Assuming the same is true of 20 mph zones
     the Council will need to reinforce the measures with awareness raising campaigns
     among residents.
5.29 Chicanes significantly impact on parking and generally require yellow lines in the
     vicinity along with signage associated with such devices. Some residents will view
     chicanes as eyesores and resist their construction outside their houses.



1
 Are speed enforcement cameras more effective than other speed management measures?
The impact of speed management schemes on 30 mph roads. Liverpool University, 2005.
Source LTT 419.

    5.10
5.30 Six zones are proposed to be introduced within the next 2 years and aligning
     zones with school locations is a priority. Other local safety schemes concentrate
     on junctions with a significant casualty record and on more extensive corridor or
     area wide traffic management and calming measures including speed cameras and
     School Radar Signs. The Council has 12 radar units or speed indicating devices
     (SIDS) that will be used on a rolling programme at 57 sites during 2005/06, and
     will start to use five SIDS that display offending car registrations.
5.31 An extensive programme of road safety education is proposed by the Council,
     supported by an ‘Encouragement’ approach that aims to involve the local
     community in owning the road safety problem. Chapter 6, annex 2 provides
     full detail on this. Local businesses and organisations sponsor campaigns and
     competitions, and excellent relations are maintained with the local press leading
     to comprehensive press coverage of every initiative the road safety unit publicises.
     A ‘Local Road Safety Plan and Casualty Report’ will be published each year
     to provide full detail of the Borough’s progress against casualty targets and its
     strategy for further improvement. Casualties in 2004 were 461, a full 8.8% lower
     than in 2003.The expenditure proposals follow: please see Forms 5 to 13.




                                                                                5.11
 Form Number        5                                                       Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            20 MPH
Location:                       Speed Limits outside Borough Schools
Dates:                          2006/07 - 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



The Borough intends to introduce 20 mph limits on many of its non-principal residential roads through different
elements of the 20 mph programme included in this Local Implementation Plan. By adding the proposals in this
form it will largely meet its commitment to having 20 mph limits within the 100m zone around all schools within the
Borough.

There are a number of schools within the Surbiton Neighbourhood, one located on a busy bus route, which are
either developing or have developed Green Travel Plans to encourage a switch from the car to other more
sustainable transport modes. In addition four schools have been identified within South of the Borough
Neighbourhood. The introduction of 20 mph zones in roads around these schools will make a significant
improvement to highway safety for all road users.

Schools included in this programme are:-

Hollyfield, St Matthews, Shrewsbury House, Southborough Boys and St Mary’s Primary

This is linked to the School Travel Plans Strategy, which in general will require 20 mph zones around all Borough
schools. The programme will cover other parts of the Borough in later years.

Where a school is not covered by this action i.e. it is on a principal road it is proposed to introduce variable 20 mph
speed limits operational for an hour in the morning and afternoon to coincide with identified picking-up and
dropping-off times. It is proposed to implement variable speed limits at the schools listed below by phased
introduction over the next two years:

Tiffin Girls and Fernhill -        Richmond Road
Tiffin Boys and Kingston Grammar - London Road



                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07       2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                50            90          95          85             320
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   50            90          95          85             320
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Schools, Outcome of consultation process




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

The proposal is principally aimed at Road Safety improvement but also contributes to Priority 3 by relieving
traffic congestion and promoting modal shift. Based on the London Road Safety Units Review of 20 mph in
                                                                                                                        I               1&7             4G.Pr9
London Boroughs we would anticipate a 57% reduction in KSI and an average reduction of traffic speeds by 9
mph


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)
Walking and cycling                                                                                                                                          Positive
Cars- slight journey time increase balanced by reduced casualty risk to car occupants                                                                        Neutral


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:
                                                                                                                                                             Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Disabled, Children as pedestrians and cyclists, older people                                        Positive
 Form Number         6                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            20 MPH
Location:                       Princes/Hamilton/Cranborne Area (Tolworth Triangle)

Dates:                          2006/07 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:



The major objective of the scheme is to reduce traffic speed, reduce through traffic, reduce commercial vehicle
intrusion and, through the provision of improved facilities, encourage more people to walk and cycle in an
improved environment. There were 15 casualties in the 36 months to December 2004. There is one school within
and three schools close to the area. The proposal will not have any adverse or negative impact on other road
users and will encourage slower vehicle movements at junctions.



The aim of making the area low speed is also to create a better environment for pedestrians and cyclists through
the introduction of physical improvements to tackle barriers such as obstructive parking, poor condition of
footways, large radii and lack of safe crossing points at the junctions. This would also benefit PTW users and
improve the appearance and ambience of the streets.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06     2006/07      2007/08    2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          80           90         0            170
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                             0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          80           90         0            170
                                                                   STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Outcome of consultation process
Schools



Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                        number (Appendix C)

The proposal is principally aimed at Road Safety improvement but also contributes to Priority 3 relieving traffic
congestion and promoting modal shift. Causal chain 5 on page 225 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission                I, 3            1&7             4G.Pr9
shows the range of Mayoral objectives addressed by this proposal.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)
Walking and cycling                                                                                                                                          Positive
Cars- slight journey time increased balanced by reduced casualty risk to car occupants                                                                       Neutral


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Disabled, Older people, Children as pedestrians and cyclists                                        Positive
 Form Number           7                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            20 MPH in residential roads
Location:                       Various locations in Kingston Neighbourhood

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:



20 mph zones increase safety and security for vulnerable road users, notably pedestrians and cyclists, which
helps to achieve a change in modal shift in favour of cycling and walking. Where appropriate one of the best ways
to ensure successful 20 mph zones is to introduce speed reducing features of a significant number and design to
reduce speeds without dependence on speed enforcement.

In October 2004 the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee approved a phased implementation of 20 mph
zones in “residential roads” in the Kingston Town Neighbourhood. The proposals will introduce physical measures
in the form of either horizontal or vertical deflections to achieve this objective. The full range of measures will
consist of entry treatment, chicanes, refuge islands and pedestrians crossing points, junction priority changes,
parking review, traffic calming and management measures, combination of horizontal and vertical alignment
measures, introduction of signing and road markings, footway maintenance and variable speed signs.
In addition to the introduction of some fifteen new 20 mph areas, improvements would also be made to two of the
existing five zones to bring them up to Direction 14a of the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002. None of the
zones exceed £100,000.

Included in the 2008/09 programme is the introduction of 20 mph into Surbiton District Centre. The scheme would
primarily concentrate on the main shopping street Victoria Road where, due to conflicts between buses, cars,
cyclists and pedestrians, there have been a considerable number of accidents over the last 3 years, although
treatment of adjoining streets would also be necessary. Given the complexity of the problems in this area a
comprehensive approach is required over and above that just concerned with the road safety aspects.
Consequently elements of this scheme are also proposed under walking, cycling, accessibility and regeneration.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08    2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                173        210          310        235           928
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   173        210          310        235           928
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Schools, Residents
Dependencies and Risks: Outcome of consultation process




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

The proposal is principally aimed at Road Safety improvement but also contributes to Priority 3 by relieving
traffic congestion and promoting modal shift. Based on the London Road Safety Unit’s Review of 20 mph zones             I               1&7             4G.Pr9
in London Boroughs we would anticipate a 57% reduction in KSI and an average speed reduction of 9 mph.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)
Walking and cycling                                                                                                                                          Positive
Cars- slight journey time increases balanced by reduced casualty risk to car occupants                                                                       Neutral


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Disabled, Children as pedestrians and cyclists, older people                                        Positive
Form Number         8                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            20 MPH
Location:                       Clarence Avenue

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



Clarence Avenue in the Coombe Vale Ward of New Malden runs east to west linking the local shopping parade at
‘The Triangle’ with Coombe Road and New Malden District Centre. It is a bus route for Routes 213 and N213 (the
night bus) running between Kingston and Croydon. Towards its eastern end is Coombe Girl’s Secondary School
and the proposed site for the new Groves Medical Centre. Consisting of approximately 188 properties and a
corresponding population in the region of 400, it has an IMD 2004 of 15,216.

Over the past 3 years there have been 9 recorded accidents involving pedestrians and vehicle turning
manoeuvres.

The scheme aims to enhance and extend the existing 20 mph scheme of raised tables, road markings and
signage, introduced and funded under the Coombe Girls’ School Safer Routes to School bid in 2003/04, which
have, unfortunately, not been wholly effective.

It is envisaged that the proposed scheme will consist of a combination of raised junction and side road entry
treatments plus a new pedestrian refuge island to build on the existing speed reducing measures in consultation
with the local residents Working Group.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                             2005/06    2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0       100           0            0            100
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0       100           0            0            100
                                                                 STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                          (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                   None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Outcome of consultation process




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

The proposal is principally aimed RS improvement but also contributes to Priority 3 relieving traffic congestion
                                                                                                                        I               1&7             4G.Pr9
and promoting modal shift


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)

Walking and cycling                                                                                                                                          Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                                         Neutral


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Disabled, Women, Older people, Children as pedestrians and cyclists                                        Positive




        :
Form Number        9                                                     Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            20 MPH
Location:                       New Forest Estate

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



The New Forest Estate area is situated south of the A3 trunk road in the Old Malden ward of the Borough.
Bounded on its eastern side by the A2043 Malden Road and South Lane on its western side it consists of
approximately 543 properties with a corresponding population of over 1,000. It has an IMD 2004 of 16,561.

Over the last 3 years there have been a total of 11 recorded casualty accidents involving speeding and turning
manoeuvres.

The proposed scheme will involve the introduction of a variety of traffic calming measures, to be identified through
consultation with local residents, will seek to tackle the issue of through ‘rat running’ traffic, reduce speeds and
accident potential in the area, enhancing existing traffic management measures.

It is envisaged that the creation of ‘walking bus’ through the area linking it to the adjacent existing 20 mph scheme
in the Painters Estate will be in the School Travel Plans programme during 2007/08.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0       110            0            0            110
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0       110            0            0            110
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                     None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Outcome of consultation process




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

In addition to MTS priorities, causal chain 6 on page 226 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission shows the                                             MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
range of cross-cutting Mayoral objectives addressed by this proposal.                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

The proposal is principally aimed at RS improvement but also contributes to Priority 3 relieving traffic
                                                                                                                        I               1&7             4G.Pr9
congestion and promoting modal shift


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)
Walking and cycling                                                                                                                                          Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                                         Neutral


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Disabled, Women, Older people, Children as pedestrians and cyclists                                        Positive




        :
Form Number           10                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL SAFETY SCHEMES
Location:                       A240 Ewell Road Corridor - junction improvements

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:

In conjunction with Route 281 London Bus Initiative works the Borough has undertaken initial studies on four
junctions along the A240 Ewell Road corridor between Red Lion Road and Tolworth Broadway.
The studies primarily focus on the improvement of pedestrian routes and reduction of identified road casualties,
although it is essential that traffic flow on this strategic primary route is maintained.
It is proposed to commence works at Ewell Road/Elgar Avenue/Princes Avenue junction where advanced cycle
stop-lines and signalised pedestrian facilities will be introduced. A bid of £70k to undertake these improvements
has been made in the Boroughs BSP Bid for 2006/07. Bids totalling £55k under Walking (£40k) and Cycling (£15k)
have also been made in respect of this junction in the BSP 2006/07 bid.
Subsequent bids for BSP funding in 2007/08 and 2008/09 will be made for the following junctions:-
            Ewell Road/Tolworth Broadway (continuation of works already undertaken in 2005/06 to enhance
            pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of Our Lady Immaculate Primary School)
            Ewell Road/King Charles Road/Lenelby Road (proposed junction signalisation and advanced stop-line
            cycle facilities)
            Ewell Road/Red Lion Road (proposed conversion of existing zebra crossing to toucan)




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08    2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0         70            100      100            270
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             0         0              0        0              0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0         70            100      100            270
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                     None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies: Compatibility of timetabled work on structures with smooth running of the London strategic road network. The RBK Traffic Manager will inform TfL where
and when work affecting the A240 on the strategic road network is planned.
Public consultation


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                       Priority Area       Target Number
                                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

Local Safety Schemes have and will continue to emerge from analysis of casualty statistics in RBK                      I                   1               4G.Pr9


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                    Impact
                                                                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                Neutral)

Pedestrians and cyclists – falling casualties contribute to feelings of safety                                                                                  Positive


                                                                                                                                                                Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                          (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                   Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                       Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                 Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                      Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Vulnerable road users (children and older people), BME (over represented in KSI stats)                        Positive




        :
Form Number         11                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL SAFETY SCHEMES
Location:                       Raeburn Avenue / Elgar Avenue

Dates:                          2005/06 and 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:




Raeburn Avenue/ Elgar Avenue junction is located on a bus route (Route K2) linking Kingston Hospital with
Tolworth District Centre and has incurred several accidents, including a fatality in recent years.
Buses travelling southbound from Kingston turn right from Raeburn Avenue into Elgar Avenue. The scheme will
remove the ‘see through’ problem at the junction. Improvements to pedestrian crossing points will also be
incorporated into the scheme. The proposed revised junction layout will reduce traffic speeds through the junction.
Initially it had been planned to request funding for these works via the Boroughs BSP bids in 2006/07 and
2007/08. However, by securing funding of £75k under a supplementary bid for 2005/06, detailed design work on
the improvements and preliminary implementation has been brought forward.
Although it is likely that these monies will enable the Borough to undertake the majority of the scheme in 2005/06
full completion is not envisaged until 2006/07. As a result it may be necessary for additional funds of some £50k
to be requested in 2006/07. If this bid is successful any surplus funds once completion has been achieved would
be put toward a scheme review, scheduled at the end of 2006/07 and resulting remedial measures. Obviously if
funding is forthcoming in 2006/07 the £100k requested in 2007/08 will no longer be required.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06    2006/07      2007/08      2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                75        0           100           0             175
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   75        0           100           0             175
                                                                  STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                           (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                 Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                   None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS (please specify)

OTHER (please specify)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Public consultation




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                       Priority Area       Target Number
                                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

Local Safety Schemes have and will continue to emerge from analysis of casualty statistics in RBK                      I                   1               4G.Pr9


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                    Impact
                                                                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                Neutral)
Pedestrians and cyclists – falling casualties contribute to feelings of safety                                                                                  Positive


                                                                                                                                                                Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                          (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                   Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                       Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                 Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                      Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Vulnerable road users (children and older people), BME (over represented in KSI stats)                        Positive




        :
Form Number          12                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL SAFETY SCHEMES – Generic form for schemes under £100k
Location:                       See below

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:



Local Safety Schemes are designed and implemented in the context of an integrated approach to transport. They
achieve accident reduction and prevention through four main approaches; namely single site action, mass action,
area wide action and route treatment. The impact of each scheme is considered in relation to the environment,
safety and security, economy, accessibility and integration and the carrying out of a safety audit is an integral part
of these techniques in achieving prevention of potential accidents.

There are a range of techniques that, singly or in combination, reduce volume and speed of traffic and encourage
alternative modes of travel. They include traffic calming measures, junction treatment and traffic management,
redistribution of the carriageway to vulnerable road users and provision of cycle lanes and tracks. The key
objective is casualty reduction and this is achieved by eliminating some accidents entirely and reducing the
severity of those that remain.

Schemes identified within this programme in 2006/07 and 2007/08 are:-

Blakes Lane/ Malden Road, Bridge Road, Brighton Road/Portsmouth Road junction, Cambridge Road/Kingston
Road, London Road/Clifton Road/Park Road/Manorgate Road junction, Clayton Road and Surbiton Road/Beaufort
Road/Maple Road/Surbiton Hill Road junction.

Improvements at the following junction layouts are planned in 2007/08

Gloucester Road/Homersham Road/Porchester Road, London Road (Queen Elizabeth Road to Cambridge Road)
and Penrhyn Road/Grove Crescent/Woodbines Avenue.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07       2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                               230         255          205            0            690
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                                 0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                  230         255          205            0            690
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS (please specify)

OTHER (please specify)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Public consultation




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                       Priority Area       Target Number
                                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

Local Safety Schemes have and will continue to emerge from analysis of casualty statistics in RBK                      I                   1               4G.Pr7


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                    Impact
                                                                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                Neutral)
Pedestrians and cyclists – falling casualties contribute to feelings of safety                                                                                  Positive


                                                                                                                                                                Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                          (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                   Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                       Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                 Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                      Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Vulnerable road users (children and older people), BME (over represented in KSI stats)                        Positive
Form Number         13                                                       Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            ROAD SAFETY: EDUCATION, TRAINING AND PUBLICITY
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          Continuous – 2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



To promote road safety and raise travel awareness through a range of initiatives including:-
•   May Merrie (an annual family event), roadside poster boards, school entrance banners, in-car safety and anti-
    drink drive campaigns.
•   Children’s Traffic Club and Road safety education for pre-school children
•   Road safety training for primary school children –          “Road Safety Matters” newsletter, Junior Citizen and
                                                                 Road Safety Officer Schemes
•   Road safety training for secondary school children –        Year 10 Road Safety Multi-agency Streetwise days
•   Road safety training for adults
•   Road safety training for the elderly
•   Road safety training for users of Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs)
•   Theatre in Education drama workshops for primary and secondary school children




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06        2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                15           51.5          53          55           174.5
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                           34            35           36          36            141

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   49           86.5          89          91           315.5
                                                                      STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

                                                                     ANNUAL
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                  141              REVENUE
                                                                    FUNDING
PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners : Schools, local media, sponsors
Dependencies:
Risks: No significant risks

Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                             MTS Proposal/ Policy
                                                                                                             Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                             Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                             III, VI & VII   7, 12 & 13      4.Pr4


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                      Impact
                                                                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                  Neutral)

Pedestrians – part of the ETP programme targets car drivers, stressing respect for vulnerable road users                                          Positive
Cyclists – as above and encourages increased use of cycles by those already owning them                                                           Positive
Public Transport – General travel awareness promotion of environmental benefits will encourage modal shift                                        Positive
PTW’s – increased awareness of this vulnerable group by motorists                                                                                 Positive
Car Users -                                                                                                                                       Neutral
                                                                                                                                                  Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                            (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                  Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                     Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                         Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                   N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                        Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Children, the elderly, BME and women                                                            Positive




        :
Walking
Strategic Walking Routes in London
5.32 The Council is a partner in the Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking
     Routes in London which is being managed by the Corporation of London as lead
     Borough. The intention is to complete and promote the London Outer Orbital
     Path, the Capital Ring, the Thames Path, the Jubilee Walkway, the Green Chain
     Walk and the Lee Valley Walk. In doing so it will:
     • Make a significant contribution to making London one of the most walk
       friendly cities in the world.
     • Promote walking in London and encourage more people to walk.
     • Improve conditions for pedestrians along the 500 kilometres of route in the
       GLA area, bringing the six routes up to a standard where they are Connected,
       Conspicuous, Comfortable, Convenient and Convivial.
     • Provide high quality walking experiences making London a more attractive
       place to live, work in or visit.
     • Increase the amount of walking generally but specifically the number of walk
       journeys made on the six strategic routes. This will have consequent benefits
       for individual physical and mental health and the local economy. Where these
       replace journeys otherwise made by vehicles there will also be indirect
       benefits including less traffic congestion, better air quality, lower noise
       pollution and a stronger sense of community.
     • Offer attractive, cheap and reliable ways of seeing London, taking pressure
       off congested public transport in central London.
     • Provide a strategic framework for the development of more local networks of
       walking improvement schemes, set exemplar standards for the design,
       management and promotion of quality walking environments and link the
       different authorities across the capital providing opportunities for people to
       walk north, south, east and west.
5.33 RBK is committed to completing and promoting the two strategic walks which
     pass through the Borough; the London Outer Orbital Path (LOOP), and the
     Thames Path. Where the council has responsibility for maintaining these routes
     it will continue its maintenance duties following the completion of any works.
     Works carried out through this partnership will be complementary and additional
     to the other works relating to walking contained in our LIP submission. A bid
     totalling £120k for improvement works on the Thames Path has been made to TfL
     Strategic Walks via the City of London as lead Borough and is summarised in form
     18. Work in the Hogsmill Valley which benefits the LOOP is outlined on form 17.

  5.12
5.34 It is important to gain a full knowledge of physical barriers to walking within the
     Borough and the Council intend to deploy one full time post to walking audits.
     This will cost in the region of £40k a year each year and provide the information
     needed to draw up specific improvement schemes and to ensure that all other
     highway work incorporates any opportunity to reduce or eliminate barriers to
     walking. Disabled and mobility impaired users will be a key consultee group as
     improvement schemes are designed. Form 14 expands on the audit approach.
5.35 Work on pedestrianising Castle Street in Kingston town centre should be
     completed in early 2006. Like other pedestrianised streets there will be
     controlled access for service and emergency vehicles and the Council wish to
     convert manually operated bollards to automatic ones controllable from the
     permanently manned CCTV room in the Guildhall (see form 42). In Castle
     Street arrangements will be made for a time slot during which service vehicles can
     access the shops, operating with one way working. At present the Council is not
     proposing full pedestrianisation of other existing streets but redevelopment in the
     town centre may result in a two level pedestrianised street on a new alignment.
     Significant programmes of work on extending pedestrian phasing at signalised
     junctions and modernising facilities for disabled users are planned (see form 15).
     Schemes at specific locations are also identified in forms 16, 19 and 20. The
     package of expenditure proposals up to 2008/09 follow: please see Forms 14 - 20.




                                                                                5.13
Form Number          14                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING – Borough Walking Route Surveys and DDA Accessibility Improvements
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          2006/2007 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:


A programme of walking surveys will take place in the early years of the LIP These will provide the detailed audit
information needed to identify improvement schemes and actions. The Council has begun an initial study of key
walking routes centred on the ten main overland railway stations in the Borough. The main walking routes have
been identified within a 0.8 km (1/2 mile radius) of each of these stations. These surveys will address routes to
and from schools, community facilities, public buildings such as libraries and leisure facilities, bus interchanges
and local shopping areas.

The surveys will consider barriers and obstacles to walking particularly in relation to the young, elderly, disabled
and people with prams, buggies and young children. Key elements within the route surveys will be the inspection
of footway surfacing, pedestrian and dropped crossing facilities including tactile paving, drainage issues,
obstructions along the desired footway route, cleanliness, provision of seating (where possible), lighting, personal
security and directional signing. They will also take into account natural flow and desire line of walking routes,
visibility, street clutter and overgrown vegetation and trees.

On completion of the route surveys, recommendations will be made in terms of removing these barriers as well as
introducing new or improved safe crossing points. These recommendations will be discussed with traffic
engineers as part of a structured approach to their delivery. Some will be incorporated into existing highway and
traffic management schemes, including signing, others will generate specific walking schemes and the balance will
be addressed through revenue expenditures e.g. remedial works to remove overgrown vegetation etc. The
benefits of this programme will also be maintained into the future through systematic procedures to ensure that all
aspects of the public footways and footpaths are maintained to the required standards.

Removal of obstacles to walking following these comprehensive surveys will encourage modal shift. It is expected
to reduce falls and resultant injuries, which can be very serious for elderly people. Probably more significant, it will
reduce the fear of falls and thus increase accessibility for elderly people. Where the improvements affect the
interaction of pedestrians and traffic they should lead to a continued fall in pedestrian casualties.

Spending proposals emerging from the surveys will be prepared and itemised as part of the Annual Progress
report/BSP process.

(Continued overleaf)
Form Number          14 (ctd)                                            Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING – Borough Walking Route Surveys and DDA Accessibility Improvements
Location:                       Boroughwide
Dates:                          2006/2007 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:


Accessibility Aspect of Programme
The £40k identified for these surveys in 2006/07 was classified under accessibility in the Council’s BSP bid but in
terms of a three year programme of work it is preferable to identify the entire programme as walking related while
stressing that improved accessibility in DDA terms is one of the key objectives of the programme.
In terms of BSP funding the Council estimate that £100k of the 2007/08 to 2008/09 total relates specifically to DDA
accessibility. It should be noted that where possible improvements are being undertaken within approved
schemes or under highway maintenance works, helping to hold down costs.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09         Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0        40           70          70              180
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                   20          40               60

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0        40           90          110             240
                                                                   STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                   None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER                                                 60         Envisaged                   Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Community Plan partners such as PCT, Kingston Voluntary Action. Also Education and Leisure Directorate and Community Services Directorate.
Dependencies and Risks: No significant risks. Identified improvements will attract consensus political support and pose no novel engineering challenges.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                   MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                Priority Area    Target Number
                                                                                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                   4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                V and VI         12, 7 & 10        4I. Pr8
                                                                                                                                                   4P.Po2


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                               Impact
                                                                                                                                                           (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                           Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                                                    Positive


                                                                                                                                                           Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                     (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                           Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                              Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                  Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                            Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                 Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children, Women                                                                  Positive




        :
 Form Number         15                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING – schemes including pedestrian phasing, individually less than £100k
Location:                       Various - See below

Dates:                          2005/06 – 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:


Funding has been allocated in 2005/06 from LSS and ZO to confront the poor accident record in the Norbiton
Estate area of Kingston, an area of predominantly public owned housing. Although the primary effect of the
changes that are currently being developed with residents is to reduce accidents, these are being tailored to
encourage walking in an area where car ownership is low and many people rely upon public transport to meet their
daily needs. The current approach is to develop a ‘Homezone’ feel through the creation of chevron parking to slow
and discourage motor vehicles and to improve pedestrian crossing points especially on the well used routes to
The Mount school.

The 2006/2007 programme includes £10k of funding to continue the hard won public involvement in examining
how successful the new changes will be, not only in reducing accidents but also in encouraging walking and civic
pride in an area that has previously been neglected by the Council and residents alike. It will enable ‘after’ traffic
data to be established and to continue dialogue with residents to monitor resident attitudes to the changes, whilst
identifying future improvements that would build on and consolidate the work undertaken in 2005/06. This would
then form the subject of proposals laid out in the 2007 Annual Progress Report/BSP bid.

In addition the Borough will take the opportunity to modernise one ATS junction in Kingston town centre to bring it
up to Audit Commission BVPI standards for facilities for disabled users through the introduction of the correct “L”
shaped paving and audible signal indicator equipment such as rotating tactile knobs. Feasibility studies for the
implementation of pedestrian phasing will also be undertaken at a further six signalised junctions in Kingston and
Surbiton (the latter including expenditure of £40k for the A240 Ewell Road junction at Elgar Avenue/Princes
Avenue for which BSP bids of £70k and £15k respectively are being made this year under Local Safety and
Cycling)
The 2007/ 08 programme includes further improvements to the footpath/cyclepath known as ‘The Cut’ which runs
along the side of the railway line from Kingston Road to New Malden Station.
Finally the 2008/09 programme includes potential improvements in Surbiton Town Centre. Complementary work to
realise this substantial proposal is also contained within 20mph, cycling, accessibility and regeneration
programmes.



                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08       2008/09        Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  105      125           130           80             440
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                              0         0           35             0              35

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     105      125           165           80             475
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER                                                 35          Envisaged                    Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: RBK Traffic Manager, TfL ‘s traffic signals unit, local organisations representing disabled and mobility impaired users.
Dependencies and Risks: Implementation of pedestrian phasing must not result in significant adverse impacts on buses so the feasibility work may lead into designing
mitigation measures at any set of signals where this risk is identified.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                      MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                    Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                      Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                      4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                    VII               12 & 7          4I. Pr7
                                                                                                                                                      4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                               Impact
                                                                                                                                                           (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                           Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                                                    Positive


                                                                                                                                                           Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                     (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                           Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                              Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                  Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                            Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                 Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children                                                                         Positive




        :
 Form Number           16                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING
Location:                       Red Lion Road

Dates:                          2006/07 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:



Red Lion Road is an important link between the Red Lion Road Business Park, Tolworth Hospital, Tolworth Junior
School (at the northern end), Tolworth Girls School (at the southern end), a large residential area and Tolworth
District Shopping Centre.
It is a well trafficked route providing good access to Red Lion Business Park and it is estimated that between
3,000 to 3,500 people use this road on a daily basis, with pedestrian counts of 280 per hour.
Phase 1 of the scheme, programmed for 2006/07, would allow for the provision of new zebra crossing facilities in
the vicinity of the Hospital. Improvements to the footways on both sides of the road where the footway condition
adjacent to the existing pedestrian crossing has deteriorated over many years are also proposed. Relocation of
the southbound bus stop will also enable the shelter to be relocated to the back of the footway.
Introduction of “at any time” waiting restrictions would also be introduced at junctions to prevent obstructive and
dangerous parking. Rationalisation of existing parking arrangements to provide benefits for both residents and the
servicing needs of shops and businesses along Red Lion Road. In addition new landscaped areas will be
introduced to include provision for future maintenance.
Phase 2 programmed for 2007/08 would see extension of these walking improvements along Red Lion Road to
include the shops and business frontages between the Hospital and Thornhill Road.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0         100          100           0            200
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0         100          100           0            200
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:



Risks: Introduction of “at any time” waiting restrictions can fuel opposition to a proposal. The Council need to ensure the overall gain to many from the
scheme is adequately explained and apparent to local residents and businesses.




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                          Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                           4I. Pr2
                                                                                                          VI              12 & 7
                                                                                                                                           4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                    Impact
                                                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                Neutral)
Walking                                                                                                                                         Positive


                                                                                                                                                Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                          (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                   Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                       Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                 Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                      Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children                                                              Positive




        :
 Form Number           17                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING
Location:                       Hogsmill Valley Walk Strategy

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



Creating a riverside walk through the Hogsmill Valley, linking the Thames to the Green Belt in the south of the
Borough has been a Council objective dating back to the 1980s and in June 2002 the Council adopted a strategy
to promote and develop the Hogsmill Valley Walk (HVW).
The Strategy aims to identify potential action points to establish the HVW along the length of the river in order to
promote both long and short distance walking in the Borough through improving accessibility, as well as enhancing
the Borough’s landscape and biodiversity. As a planning tool, the Hogsmill Valley Walk Strategy identifies
individual works schemes/programmes that contribute to the development of the Walk.
The programmes for individual works are dependent on the scale and nature of the works. However, the proposed
Works Programme for 2006/07 is as follows:-

Scheme 1      Elmbridge Meadows, Long Meadows and St Johns Primary School Path Development Works
              - likely to take 3-4 years to complete
Scheme 2      Sheephouse Way Cycle Bridge (See Cycling Bid Form No.33)
Scheme 3      Japanese Knotweed Eradication (Phase IV)
Scheme 4      Path Development Works (Swan Public House to Villiers Road)
A programme of ongoing maintenance works and improvements to path surface, lighting, signage, drainage and
security will also be conducted.
These stages of the schemes’ development will contribute to a comprehensive project that enhances safe, direct
and comfortable use of the Walk by the public.
Scheme 2 is a cycling scheme, geographically within the Hogsmill Valley, but its costs are identified and bid for
under cycling (Green Corridor) schemes. These works would be completed in 2006/07. Scheme 3 is ongoing.
Scheme 4 would be completed in 2006/07.



                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          51           70          50            171
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                              0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          51           70          50            171
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Environment Agency
Dependencies and Risks: Consultation process


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                              MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                              Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                              Number (Appendix C)

In addition to MTS priorities, causal chain 4 on page 224 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission shows the                                   4I. Pr2
range of Mayoral objectives addressed by this proposal.                                                       VII             12 & 7          4I. Pr7
                                                                                                                                              4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                       Impact
                                                                                                                                                   (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                   Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                                            Positive
Cycling                                                                                                                                            Positive

                                                                                                                                                   Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                   Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                      Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                          Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                    N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                         Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group                 Older People, Children, Disabled                                                                 Positive




        :
 Form Number           18                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING
Location:                       Thames Path - Thames Side, Kingston upon Thames

Dates:                          2006/07 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:




This project seeks funding support to improve the walking environment for visitors along the Thames Path in
Kingston town centre. The project involves major improvements to riverside public access and safety through the
provision of a riverside footway that will allow pedestrians closer access to the riverside in a safe environment, and
enhancements to a riverside public car park to provide an appropriate landscaped setting to encourage visitors to
stop, relax and enjoy the wharfside river setting.
The proposal aims to :
1. Provide a footway that links the existing riverside footway at the Slug and Lettuce PH with that at Canbury
   Gardens. Currently this part of the Thames Path, a distance of some 150 metres has no riverside walkway,
   and pedestrians either walk in the roadway at personal risk, or transfer to the footway on the side of Thames
   Side furthest from the river. The footway would be finished in a resin-bonded gravel (a robust, attractive,
   appropriate and yet cost effective material) to provide continuity with plans for resurfacing to the north of
   Charter Quay and elsewhere in the Thames Landscape Strategy area.
2. Reduce the area used for car parking and the visual impact of that parking. The Council have previously
   accepted that the need to improve the environment in this location will necessitate a reduction in the area
   used for car parking. The provision of some dedicated parking bays for the disabled at this location is also
   desirable. The initial feasibility stage of this project will determine the amount of car parking that it is
   necessary and desirable to retain.
3. introduce a landscaping scheme that is appropriate to the location’s setting between the built-up urban
   riverside and the “soft” riverside of Canbury Gardens (which is designated Metropolitan Open Land). This
   may involve repair of the granite setts, planting of ornamental trees, shrubs and beds designed to act as a
   buffer between the open space and the road and to provide an appropriate location for some seating. All
   materials will be selected from the TLS design pallet.
4. introduce lighting of the public space and the parking area for improved safety and security, and provide some
   illumination of the railway bridge structure to provide interest. The lighting is likely to be a combination of
   column mounted lights, up lighters to illuminate structures and recessed directional lighting to provide subtle
   illumination of ground and low level features such as the setts.


                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0         0            0            0                0
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             0        25           15            80              120

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0        25           15            80              120
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                      120         requested               Bid via City of London
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS                                                                                     National Trails
OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: City of London, Mayor for London’s Architecture and Urbanism Unit
Dependencies: There are three undetermined major planning applications in the locality that offer the prospect of S106 funds to support riverside environmental
enhancements such as this scheme. RBK may be in a position to allocate some funding support for the Thames Path project if planning permission were to be granted.
Risks: The improvements will require the agreement of the five landowners affected. Initial discussions indicate that the landowners support the concept scheme.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                   MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                Priority Area    Target Number
                                                                                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                   4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                VI               12


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                            Impact
                                                                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                        Neutral)
Walking                                                                                                                                                 Positive


                                                                                                                                                        Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                        Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                           Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                               Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                         N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                              Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children                                                                      Positive




        :
    Form Number      19                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING
Location:                       Riverside Walk – Eagle Wharf Riverside Park

Dates:                          2006/07 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:

The Thames riverside in Kingston town centre is a very popular and busy area used by residents and visitors for a
wide range of water sports and land based leisure activities. In recent years there has been an expansion of the
riverside leisure activity, in particular through the award winning Charter Quay development, which has served to
boost the riverside’s attraction.
Since the completion of Kingston Bridge Refurbishment and the adjoining footway, there have been numerous
public calls to improve the walk along the river to match the quality of the footway on the bridge as, in its current
state, the riverside walk does little to promote health or encourage walking.
The area to the north of Charter Quay is the subject of planned, programmed and funding secured works, and it is
the Eagle Wharf Riverside area, once occupied by Kingston’s Eagle Brewery lying off the High Street in Kingston’s
Old Town Conservation Area, between The Ram public house and the Queen’s Reach flats, where there is a
pressing need for improvement.
In a joint initiative a concept scheme for the area has been developed to:-
•     resurface the walkway;
•     build an ampitheatre for outdoor performances;
•     commission a heritage artwork sculpture;
•     improve existing lighting, seating and access signage
•     introduce new planting to mask building facades surrounding the space, accentuate the enclosure of the
      performance area and frame the river views.
The section would remain a cycle dismount area as, given the width of parts of the walkway, it is not safe to
combine cycling and walking.



                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07       2007/08         2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   0        130          72.5             0            202.5
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                              0         0           32.5             0            32.5

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                      0        130          105              0             235
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                      COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER                                                                                                S106
                                                    £32.5         Approved                 (money ring fenced for this
                                                                                                    project)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Following initial consultation the Council will utilise LDA design expertise to work up the design. RBK design engineers will then be involved to prepare the detailed
engineering specifications and detailed costing.




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                    Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                        4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                    VI                12 & 7
                                                                                                                                                        4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                             Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                                                      Positive


                                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)
                                                        Improved lighting and more people in and around the performance area will improve feelings of
Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:
                                                                                                                                                             Positive
security after dark along the whole stretch of riverside.
Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                              N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children                                                                           Positive




        :
 Form Number        20                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            WALKING
Location:                       Tolworth Broadway – New pelican crossing to replace subway

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:

Tolworth District Centre serves large residential areas located on either side of the Broadway. It is a centre for
both employment and shopping plus a major transport interchange for public transport (bus services). 5,500 to
6,000 pedestrians a day use the Broadway.
In recent years the more traditional food retail shops have been supplemented by changes of use to pubs and
restaurants, which have helped to revitalised the Broadway. Current uses include Marks & Spencer, an 18-floor
office building, a hotel, mixed retail units and pubs and restaurants.
The existing subway is considered to be a security hazard by pedestrians and the central barrier on the Broadway
is considered by many of the businesses to inhibit shopping activity. Consequently it is proposed to decommission
the subway and replace it with a new pedestrian crossing in the form of a staggered pelican crossing.
The conversion of the subway to a pelican crossing will be an important first step in regenerating the Broadway by
improving the local street environment for pedestrians and cyclists. It forms part of a more ambitious aspiration for
the layout of Tolworth Broadway, which will revitalise the area and improve pedestrian movement as perceived by
the local road users in the District Centre. In this respect a separate step one submission under the Area Based
Schemes process is being submitted to TfL.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06     2006/07       2007/08      2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          250           0            0             250
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          250           0            0             250
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:



Dependencies and Risks: Scheme already approved in principle by Neighbourhood committees.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                            MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                            Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                            Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                            4I. Pr2
                                                                                            VI              12 & 7
                                                                                                                            4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                     Impact
                                                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                 Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                          Positive
Cycling                                                                                                                          Positive
                                                                                                                                 Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                           (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                 Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                    Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                        Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                  Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                       Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Disabled, Children                                               Positive




        :
Cycling
5.36 Based on LATS household surveys the number of cycling trips in the Borough rose
     17.5% between 1991 and 2001. This is better than most neighbouring boroughs
     but much faster growth will be required to reach a 6% modal share for cycling by
     2011 so there is a substantial package of expenditure proposals up to 2008/09.
     The proposals flow from the Borough’s Cycling Strategy 2 and each form cites the
     relevant policy numbers from the Strategy. A substantial part of the expenditure
     will be on the LCN+ and the common statement about the objectives of this
     network appears in annex C of chapter 3.
5.37 Cyclist training is carried out to reduce the numbers of road casualties, increase
     levels of cycling and reduce dependency on motor vehicles. (Proposal 4J.Pr8)
     The Road Safety and Travel Awareness Unit is committed to offering a variety
     of training to suit cyclists of all ages and abilities with a real terms increase in
     resources. Training includes consideration for pedestrians and clear advice that
     unless a pavement is signed for shared use it must not be used by cyclists.
5.38 The programme of training is outlined on form 26. The School Travel Plan
     Strategy includes further information on the growth to date in the numbers
     trained (see paragraphs 8.24 to 8.25) and table 6.7 in the Road Safety Strategy
     illustrates further planned growth. Provision principles are:
       • Child Cyclist Training will be available to all children aged 10 years and over
         wishing to undertake a course. Capacity during term time will be increased
         with the development of a longer training season. All courses include on-road
         training.
       • Adult Cyclist Training will be available to all who want to participate aged 16
         years and above. Courses will be tailored to individuals needs equipping them
         with their required skills. 1:1 training will be developed so that training can be
         provided to adults at a time that suits them and at a location/route of their
         choice.
       • Family Cyclist Training is offered at interested schools for family groups:
         parents and their children aged 6 - 9 years. This training is being developed to
         make it available to all schools.
5.39 The opportunity for a cyclist to use vehicle restricted area and pedestrianised
     streets provides both convenience and safety to the cyclist. Conversely it can
     cause problems for pedestrians if a minority of cyclists are inconsiderate in the
     way they cycle. The Council has decided that when Castle Street in Kingston

2
 A Cycling Strategy for the Royal Borough of Kingston, 2005, available from Rob Parsey, Cycling
and Walking Officer. 020-8547-5941

    5.14
is converted to a vehicle restricted street, cyclists will still be allowed to cycle
along it on a marked section of the carriageway. Cyclists will also retain the
right to cycle on the western side of the Market Place at any time in Kingston
despite pressure to remove this right. In general the Council intend to follow
this principle unless a street has pedestrian flows too high to permit cycling, in
which case cyclists must dismount and push. Cyclists also benefit from cycle-only
contraflows and exemptions to banned left and right turns in several locations.
The Council’s Cycling Officer works with the local police to pass on complaints
about cycling on footways and the Council support the police policy of issuing
warnings and moving on to fixed penalties for persistent offenders. This should
ensure a sufficient level of enforcement to deter cycling on pavements or in
fully pedestrianised streets. The expenditure proposals for all cycling schemes,
including monitoring, follow: please see Forms 21 - 27.




                                                                           5.15
Form Number          21                                           Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
                                CYCLING - LCN+ (RBK Principal Main Road Corridors) new or upgraded traffic
Summary of Proposal:
                                management and engineering measures.
Location:                       See below

Dates:                          Continuous to March 2009

Description of Main Elements:

The Borough will continue to undertake reviews of LCN+ Routes along principal main road corridors as shown on
the Proposals Plan using the CRISP (Cycle Route Implementation and Stakeholder Plan) to assess locations and
routes on the basis of coherence, directness, safety and attractiveness for cyclists.
The improvements identified will be implemented using LCN+ Package Bid funding or as part of the Principal
Roads Maintenance Programme and/or Bus Priority schemes to complete the LCN+ Network by 2010.
LCN+ Main Road Corridor Routes
   LCN+ Rte 33 A307 Richmond Road (Between Tudor Drive/Dukes Avenue and Sopwith Way)
   LCN+ Rte 3 A308 London Road (junction with Queen Elizabeth Road), Kingston Hill and Kingston Vale
   (junction with A3 Robin Hood RAB)
   A2043 Cambridge Road (junction with A308 London Road), Kingston Road and Burlington Road (junction
   with A3 Shannon's Corner)
   LCN+ Rte 3 A307 High Street and Portsmouth Road (between Kingston Hall Road and Borough boundary)
   A243 Brighton Road (junction with A307 Portsmouth Road), Upper Brighton Road, Hook Road (junction with
   A3 Ace of Spades) with A243 Hook Road and Leatherhead Road (between A3 Ace of Spades and Borough
   boundary) forming part of TLRN.
   A2043 Central Road (LB Sutton Borough boundary) and Malden Road (junction with South Lane)
LCN+
   LCN+ Route 75 Lower Ham Road (junction with A307 Richmond Road) , Skerne Road, Wood Street,
   Kingston Town Centre, Palmer Crescent, Grange Road, Springfield Road, Grove Lane, Lower Marsh
   Lane, Chiltern Drive, Surbiton Hill Park, Green Lane, Windsor Avenue, South Lane (junction with A2043
   Malden Road).
   LCN+ Lingfield Avenue (junction with Villiers Road), Beaufort Road, Maple Road, B3363 Claremont Road,
   Victoria Road (junction with A243 Brighton Road).
   LCN+Route 31 Cambridge Avenue (junction with A3), B283 Coombe Road, New Malden, "The Cut"
   railway path, Elm Road (junction with A2043 Kingston Road)
LCN+ Kingston Town Centre
The Borough will undertake traffic management and or engineering measures as necessary in accordance with
LCN+ Best Practice and RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP1-6, CP14, CP15.
                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06     2006/07       2007/08     2008/09        Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 152       365          350         350            1217
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                    85          75             160

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    152       365          435         425            1377
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

                                                                                   Future bids to be made as part of
PARTNERS LCN+
                                                                                          LCN+ Package Bid
OTHER (please specify)
                                                    160          Envisaged                   Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

London Cycle Network Plus Bids, London Bus Priority Network (LBPN). Risk factors are Committee approval for schemes that may require trade off against parking and
loading facilities for frontagers. Effective use of the CRISP process can lead to scheme design that maximises the prospect of all party acceptance and Committee
approval.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                             MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                         Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                             Number (Appendix C)

High quality cycle routes on high demand corridors will help promote modal shift from car to cycle for commuter
                                                                                                                                                             4J. Pr3
and other utility journeys. The routes will improve actual safety and perceptions of safety so encouraging               III & VII         7, 13
                                                                                                                                                             4J. Pr4
cycling.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                      Impact
                                                                                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                  Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                                                                           Positive

Walking (improved on-road facilities help to limit pavement cycling)                                                                                              Positive

Other modes                                                                                                                                                       Neutral
                                                                                                                                                                  Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                            (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                  Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                     Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                         Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                   Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                        Positive

                                                  All members of E&I target groups capable of cycling will benefit from the increased opportunity to use a
Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                                Positive
                                                  reliable and cheap mode of transport




        :
Form Number          22                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            CYCLING - New or improved facilities on non LCN+ routes in the Borough
Location:                       See below

Dates:                          Continuous to March 2009

Description of Main Elements:


RBK Principal Main Road Corridors
•    A240 Penrhyn Road (junction with Kingston Hall Road) Surbiton Road, Surbiton Hill Road, Ewell Road
     and Tolworth Broadway (junction with A3 Tolworth RAB) & A3210 Kingsdowne Road (With A240 Kingston
     Road between A3 Tolworth RAB and Borough boundary forming part of TLRN).

•    A238 Coombe Road (junction with between B283 Traps Lane ) and Coombe Lane (junction with A308
     London Road).
•    B283 Traps Lane (junction A238 Coombe Lane West), Coombe Road, High Street, A2043 Malden Road
     (junction with South Lane)
The Borough will undertake reviews of RBK Principal Main Road corridors as shown on the Proposals Plan to
assess locations and routes on the basis of coherence, directness, safety and attractiveness for cyclists.
The improvements identified will be implemented using LCN BSP funding or as part of the Principal Roads
Maintenance Programme and/or Bus Priority schemes.
The Borough will undertake traffic management and or engineering measures as necessary in accordance with
LCN+ Best Practice and RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP1-6, CP14, CP15.
London Cycle Network (LCN) Borough Routes and Facilities
The Borough Cycle Network provides an extensive network of cycle routes across the Borough that link/feed into
the LCN+ Network and adjacent routes in Surrey (Elmbridge, Mole Valley, and Epsom & Ewell District Councils).
The importance of good cycle route links with Surrey should not be overlooked as many major journey attractors
eg. Kingston Town Centre, Surbiton Station/Town Centre, and Tolworth Town Centre are located within 1-2
kilometres of the Surrey boundary
The Network is predominantly on local traffic calmed roads and there are a number of links that could be usefully
added with all the routes benefiting from improved direction signing.


                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                  2005/06       2006/07      2007/08   2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                    0             55          95        95             245
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                       0             55          95        95             245
                                                                         STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                                  (Requested,               COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                        Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS LCN+

OTHER (please specify)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

London Bus Priority Network (LBPN)
Liaison with LCN+ lead Borough if required.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                             MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                         Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                             Number (Appendix C)

High quality cycle routes on high and medium demand corridors that do not form part of the LCN+ will help
                                                                                                                                                             4J.Pr3
promote modal shift from car to cycle for commuter and other utility journeys. The routes will improve actual            III & VII         7, 13
safety and perceptions of safety, so encouraging cycling among adults and children


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                      Impact
                                                                                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                  Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                                                                           Positive

Walking (Improved on-road facilities help to limit pavement cycling)                                                                                              Positive

Other modes                                                                                                                                                       Neutral
                                                                                                                                                                  Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                            (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                  Neutral, N/A)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                     Neutral

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                         Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                   Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                        Positive

                                                  All members of E&I target groups capable of cycling will benefit from the increased opportunity to use a
Equality & Inclusion Target Group                                                                                                                                 Positive
                                                  reliable and cheap mode of transport




        :
Form Number        23                                             Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                 LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:        CYCLING - Maintenance of Non LCN+ routes
Location:                   See below

Dates:                      Continuous to March 2009

Description of Main Elements:

The carriageway surface conditions will tend to affect cyclists to a greater extent than motorists, and frequently
result in real safety hazards for cyclists.
Maintenance and cleansing of cycle routes and the highway network generally are essential if they are to
encourage greater cycle use. The design of facilities for cyclists should specifically consider how maintenance will
be undertaken, especially on off road routes that are not informally 'swept' by motor vehicles.
The Borough will undertake prompt and high maintenance, sweeping , gritting and lighting of all infrastructure used
by cyclists. Particular attention will be paid to cycle routes especially those that are off-road or remote from the
vehicle carriageway.
The Borough will undertake maintenance in accordance with RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP3,CP16,CP21




                                 FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                             2005/06      2006/07      2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                               0           20           20            20             60
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                  0           20           20            20             60
                                                                   STATUS
                                                AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                  (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS LCN+

OTHER (please specify)
                                                                Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                  Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

High quality cycle routes on high demand corridors will help promote modal shift from car to cycle for commuter
and other utility journeys. The routes will improve actual safety and perceptions of safety, so encouraging       III & VII       7, 13           4J. Pr3
cycling


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                                                                Positive
Walking                                                                                                                                                Positive
Other modes                                                                                                                                            Neutral
                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                             N/A

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                     N/A




        :
Form Number            24                                           Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                       LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:              CYCLING - Increased Cycle Parking Capacity and Quality
Location:                         See below

Dates:                            Continuous to March 2009

Description of Main Elements:

Theft and damage of cycles can be a major disincentive to increased cycle use and the Borough will need to
address these legitimate concerns through the following measures.
•   Provision of secure and convenient cycle parking commensurate with the needs of the user at district and
    local shopping centres, shopping parades, schools, Council buildings and leisure facilities and other trip
    attractors;
•   The provision, in partnership with transport operators of secure and convenient cycle parking at all transport
    interchanges, especially railway stations;
•   The Borough has adopted the Kingston Town Secure Cycle Parking Strategy to address the need for secure
    longer-term parking in Kingston Town Centre:-
             •   In the shorter term implementation of Secure Cycle Parking pilot projects
             •   A mid to long term aim of providing a Secure Cycle Parking Centre in Kingston Town Centre to
                 provide some or all of the following
             •   Supervised cycle parking
             •   Showers and changing facilities
             •   Lockers for clothing and accessories
             •   Bicycle hire
             •   Services of a retail shop
             •   Information about cycling in the local area
•       In partnership with RBK Housing, Housing Associations, Residents Associations the provision of cycle
        parking at multiple occupancy developments where the secure storage of cycles can be problematic;
•    Provision of secure and convenient cycle parking provided by businesses for their staff and visitors as part of
     Cycle Friendly Employers Projects (See Road Safety and Travel Awareness Submission);
RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP9-CP12, CP18,CP23
                                              FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06     2006/07      2007/08     2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   10       100           70         100           280
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                              20        25           30          30           105

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                      30       125          100         130           385
                                                                     STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                              (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                    Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS LCN+

S.106                                                 105                            S.106 funding £20k approved in
SRA/DfT Station Cycle Parking Initiative              10                              2003/4 is available for 2005/6
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

RBK Housing, Housing Associations, Residents Associations, Employers,




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                  Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

In addition to MTS priorities, causal chain 9 on page 229 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission shows the
                                                                                                                  VII             7, 13           4J.Pr7
range of cross-cutting Mayoral objectives addressed by the secure cycle parking proposal.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                                                                Positive

Walking (Improved on road/off street parking will improve street scene and reduce clutter/obstruction of the footway                                   Positive

Other modes                                                                                                                                            Neutral
                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Neutral

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                             Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                     Positive




        :
Form Number          25                                              Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            CYCLING - Monitoring
Location:                       See below

Dates:                          Continuous March 2009

Description of Main Elements:




The Borough will undertake comprehensive monitoring of cycle use, collisions involving cyclists, and cycle theft to
direct its programme of infrastructure developments and measure progress towards its targets.
The monitoring would include
•   Recording of pedal cyclists (including those riding or pushing on the footway) as standard procedure for all
    manual traffic or vehicle turning counts;
•   Regular recording of cycle traffic flows on all routes (both on-road and off road) and with sufficient funding it is
    proposed to introduce automatic cycle counters to provide a more accurate picture of daily/seasonal flows;
•   Collation of figures on location and number of cycle injury accidents, (noting that evidence suggests
    considerable underreporting of collisions involving cyclists and that additional data may need to be collected
    from hospitals and general practitioners);
•   Monitoring of cycle flows for the three years before (where possible) and the three years after implementation
    of measures to provide reliable evidence on effectiveness and a sound basis for predicting the effect of further
    potential cycling and road safety schemes.
•   Surveys to monitor user satisfaction before and after implementation of measures to facilitate cycling and
    implementation of road safety schemes;
•   Collation of figures on location and number of reported cycle thefts;
RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP21, CP23,CP27




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                   2005/06    2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                    0          10           15          15             40
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                          10           5                          15

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                       0          20           20          15             55
                                                                       STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                                (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                      Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES                                   10
PARTNERS LCN+

OTHER (please specify)
                                                       5             Requested                 S.106 funding
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

London Cycle Network BSP Bids




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                        III & VII         7, 13            4J.Pr1


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                     Impact
                                                                                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                 Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                                                                          Positive

Other modes                                                                                                                                                      Neutral


                                                                                                                                                                 Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                           (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                 Neutral or N/A))

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                    Neutral

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                        Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                  N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                       Positive

                                                  All members of E&I target groups capable of cycling will benefit from the further improvement derived from a
Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                               Positive
                                                  good knowledge of cycle flows




        :
Form Number        26                                            Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                 LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:       CYCLING - Training
Location:                  See below

Dates:                     2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:




The Borough will expand its programme of cycle training for all members of the community including Borough
businesses:
•   Promote and deliver on-road cycle training to an increasing proportion of 10-12 year olds, with priority given to
    running courses within school term time. The week long courses cover the Highway Code, bike maintenance,
    bike handling and on-road safety training. Approximately 1000 local children are trained every year.
•   Promote and deliver family courses in all infant, junior and primary schools with assistance from parents and
    or staff who have been trained by the Road Safety Unit;
•   Promote and deliver on road cycle training to secondary school children;
•   Establish a pool of qualified cycle trainers that can deliver training to the general public/employers on an ad
    hoc/demand led basis, to enable training to be delivered all year round and support cycle friendly employers in
    getting more staff cycling to work;
•   Provide ongoing support for those who have attended adult cycle training courses to undertake utility journeys;
•   Promote and target adult cycle training to ethnic minorities, disabled and refugees who are currently under
    represented in terms of those cycling. Approximately 30 adults are trained every year.


RBK Cycle Strategy Policies CP18-19,CP21,CP25




                                 FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                            2005/06       2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                              79          100           100         100            379
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                         10           10           10           10             40

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                 89          110           110         110            419
                                                                   STATUS
                                               AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                 (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

                                                                Approved for
                                                                  2005/06
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                 40                                     RBK Revenue Funding
                                                                Anticipated in
                                                              subsequent years
PARTNERS LCN+

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Schools (LEA and Private)
Volunteer trainers



Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                            MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                            Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                            Number (Appendix C)

Training is conducted in conjunction with School Travel Plan Strategy       VII             1, 7            4J.Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                     Impact
                                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                 Neutral)

Cycling                                                                                                          Positive

Walking - (Improved training will help to limit pavement cycling)                                                Positive

Other modes                                                                                                      Neutral
                                                                                                                 Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                           (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                 Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                    Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                        Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                  N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                       Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Children, BME and Women                                        Positive




        :
Form Number         27                                               Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                   LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:         CYCLING - Green Corridors
Location:                    See below

Dates:                       Continuous to March 2009

Description of Main Elements:

The Borough recognises that the convenience of 'off-road' green routes or links which offer significant time and
distance savings to cyclists and pedestrians, compared to making the journey by motor vehicle, should not be
overlooked.
The issue of personal security whether real or perceived needs to be addressed so that these links can be
promoted and utilised to their full potential. Where appropriate these routes need to be lit to encourage
24hour/year round usage, however, when this is not appropriate alternative safe routes need to be clearly signed.
The Borough will introduce green routes in accordance with RBK Cycle Strategy Proposals CP1-6, CP16, CP19
•   NCN Route 4 Canbury Gardens - lighting of shared unsegregated cycle and pedestrian path
•   NCN Route 4/LCN+Route 75 - lighting of shared unsegregated cycle and pedestrian path between
     Teddington Lock (LB Richmond and Lower Ham Road (RBK)
•   Tolworth Court Farm/Footpath 15 - footpath widening, conversion to unsegregated shared pedestrian cycle
    path and surfacing of path between Chessington(RBK) and Ewell (Epsom & Ewell BC, Surrey)
•   Hogsmill Valley Walk - at several locations facilities will be included to facilitate utility cycling trips
•   Knollmead/Sheephouse Way Hogsmill Cycle Bridge - provision of dedicated cycle bridge across the
    Hogsmill River to form a direct traffic free route between Malden Manor and Tolworth. (Funding for the bridge
    is within the ‘Green Corridors’ programme but being the bridge also contributes to the Hogsmill Valley strategy
    outlined on form 17).




                                   FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06       2006/07       2007/08       2008/09         Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0            62            60            60              182
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                        15            20               35

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0            62            75            80              217
                                                                       STATUS
                                                   AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                                (Requested,                    COMMENTS
                                                     (£k)
                                                                      Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS LCN+

OTHER
                                                      35             Envisaged                     Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                   MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                   Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

Encouraging leisure and utility journeys including to school and work through use of these green corridors
contributes to health related strategies to reduce obesity and promote exercise. In addition to MTS priorities,                                    4J. Pr3
                                                                                                                   VII             7, 13
causal chain 10 on page 230 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission shows the range of cross-cutting                                               3. Pr7
Mayoral objectives addressed by the Tolworth Court Farm/Footpath 15 proposal.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                            Impact
                                                                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                        Neutral)

Cycling - Provision of direct traffic free cycle routes should encourage cycling trips, with emphasis on making 24 hour routes                          Positive
Walking - Provision for cyclists should help to minimise conflict between cyclists and pedestrians                                                      Positive
Other modes                                                                                                                                             Positive
                                                                                                                                                        Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                        Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                           Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                               Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                         Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                              Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                      Neutral




        :
Traffic Signals
5.40 Variable Message Signs (VMS) on key roads within and beyond the Borough can
     be used to influence and, when necessary, divert traffic using the network. The
     Borough has, from the inception of the London Traffic Control Centre (LTCC),
     developed a two way flow of information between the LTCC and its Traffic
     Management Coordinator to the benefit of all road users. The Council’s CCTV
     control room can view all the output from LTCC cameras in the Borough with a
     degree of attention the LTCC could not devote. It can alert the LTCC by phone
     or e-mail when congestion affecting their 13,800 kilometre network of interest is
     detected. The Council will also assess the scope for using its own CCTV cameras
     to detect congestion that needs to be brought to the attention of the LTCC. The
     RBK Traffic Manager will liaise with the LTCC to agree assessment principles.
5.41 A feasibility study for, and implementation of, pedestrian phasing at signalised
     junctions appears under the walking schemes section. The study will be careful
     to assess any adverse impacts on buses and proposed schemes will, if necessary,
     include mitigation measures. All new pedestrian phasing will meet BVPI 165
     standards of accessibility if the signals are not yet compliant.

Public Transport
5.42 A permanent Park and Ride service from Kempton Park racecourse to Kingston
     town centre using the existing rail line and station is considered compatible
     with TfL’s Park and Ride Assessment Framework for London. The location,
     very close to the London end of the M3, makes it a highly promising strategic
     location for park & ride as was confirmed by consultants Colin Buchanan and
     Partners in an earlier study. The prime objective would be to capture motorists
     currently driving past the site on their way to Kingston. Much of that journey
     is on the London Borough of Richmond’s section of the A308 which suffers
     significant congestion in the peaks and often at weekends. Richmond has
     indicated their support for the proposal. The main technical issues to resolve are
     potential impacts on the road network at the site and the nearby Sunbury Cross
     roundabout where the M3 begins. This is a very busy roundabout and the access
     and egress arrangements from Kempton Park would need to be carefully designed
     to ensure no tailback could occur sufficient to interfere with the A308 exit from
     the roundabout. However this should be achievable because the normal arrival
     and departure pattern from a P&R site is less peaked than special events such as
     the race meetings that occur now.




  5.16
5.43 The proposal will fully apply the P&R Assessment Framework in attempting
     to bring the site to fruition. Table 5.3 provides a check of the proposal’s
     characteristics against the eight policy principles outlined on page 4 of the
     Framework. The use of existing parking adjoining a rail station fits well with
     proposal 4H Pr2 in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The site was identified by
     the London Transport Users Committee as having potential in their discussion
     paper of December 2004 which formed the basis of a consultation on “Getting to
     the Station” in January 2005.



Table 5.3: Kempton Park P&R Suitability Against TfL Criteria
Policy Principle

1       Site is not in zones 1-3
2       The intended outcome is both a shortening of car vehicle trips and an overall
        reduction in car vehicle kilometres
3       n/a
4       The Council is aware of the need to prevent railheading and the pricing regime
        would deter diversion by motorists from stations upstream of Kempton Park.
5       Bus services between the catchment this P&R site would serve and KTC are
        not attractive. The only direct service is the 216 with frequency varying
        between three per hour and one per hour dependent on time of day and
        week. Congestion on the route is significant, bus priority is limited. The
        catchment upstream of Kempton Park is too distant to walk to KTC from and
        too distant for the majority of cyclists. The KTC Parking Strategy says that
        “progress on initiatives like Park and Ride, and measured outcomes for town
        centre traffic levels, will be tied in to decisions on parking within KTC.”
        Paragraph 240 of the PEP focuses specifically on the reduction of all-day
        parking in the town centre once a P&R service is established.
6       Pricing arrangements are envisaged to include a two part ticket covering
        parking and return rail fare designed to discourage general parking at the site.
        Overall pricing would be set so that, in combination with the average
        journey time and wait time expectation, the generalized cost is attractive to
        car drivers formerly passing the site but not attractive enough to generate
        significant new trips by car to the site that were previously made by public
        transport, or not made at all. The overall pricing should also exceed the cost
        of traveling to Kingston on the 216 service to minimize abstraction from this
        service.
7       Preferential provision for high occupancy vehicles on the site will be considered.
8       Bays for blue badge holders would be reserved at the closest location to the
        rail station.

                                                                                   5.17
5.44 This project is still at pre-feasibility stage since it relies on co-operation from
     other partners. The Council will consult and work with each neighbouring
     authority upon which the project could impact, and with United Racecourses,
     SWT and the Highways Agency. It will be pursued during 2005/06, potentially
     leading to a costed proposal through the 2006 Annual Progress Report/BSP
     document. If partners are prepared to support the proposal, and TfL to help
     fund it, the Council envisages appointing a P&R project manager to bring it to
     fruition.

Bus stop accessibility
5.45 In line with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) principles the Council proposes
     an extensive programme to make bus stops accessible. This includes clearways
     on the highway and work at the stops themselves such as raising kerbs to 140
     mm. It is essential that low floor buses can draw up level with and close to the
     stop. If drivers are unable to do so because of obstructive parking etc much of
     the benefit of low floor design is lost. The programme will be settled following
     consistent surveys by London Buses at all bus stops across London which will help
     establish which bus stops should be treated as a priority on DDA grounds. In
     general the routes which have not yet been treated will be tackled in an order
     based on the total number of passengers using all services which share the
     route. Significant destinations like health care and educational establishments,
     interchanges, shops and places of worship will also determine the order. This will
     generally mean that stops where a K prefix (residential) bus is the only service
     will be tackled later, though 33 stops along the routes of the K1, K2 and K3 are
     within the 2006/07 programme which is listed in full in the Council’s 2005 BSP
     submission. The following form contains a costed programme of work to ensure
     100% of bus stops have clearways by 2008/09: please see Form 28.




   5.18
Form Number        28                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            BUS STOP ACCESSIBILITY
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:

Overview.
To ensure that passengers are provided with appropriate facilities that can be served by low floor buses in order to
meet Disability Discrimination Act objectives and improve accessibility generally for all passengers.

Problems addressed by the scheme.
  Obstructive parking at/near bus stops
  Buses cannot pull in close to and parallel with the kerb.
  Buses cannot always deploy their wheelchair ramp.
  Low kerbs make it difficult for some passengers to step up into the bus.
  Boarding / alighting from buses at grass verges can be dangerous when wet / muddy.

Scheme elements
  Bus stop clearways.
  Hard standings.
  Raised kerbs.
  Relocation of obstructive street furniture.
  Bus boarders and piers in areas of high parking demand.
  Accessible boarding points on Hail & Ride routes.

Locations
A list of bus stops requiring physical works between 2005/06 and 2008/09 is being drawn up by London Buses. It
is expected that about 280 clearways will need to be implemented. This will raise the percentage of bus stops with
clearways from 20% in 2004/05 to 100% in 2008/09. An additional 100 accessible boarding points on Hail & Ride
routes are proposed. In 2006/07 48 bus stops have been identified in the Council’s BSP bid: larger numbers will
be tackled in 07/08 and 08/09.

Basis for cost estimates - based on average cost of comparable measures implemented in recent years

                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09        Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  200     249          200         150             799
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             50       50          100         150             350

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     250     299          300         300            1,149
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)

                                                                                  Changes to London Buses Stops
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                      200
                                                                                         & Shelters etc.
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
                                                     350         Envisaged                  Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: London Buses
Dependencies and Risks: Public consultation process which can delay or modify initially preferred solutions




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                              MTS Proposal/Policy
                                                                                                              Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                              Number (Appendix C)

Combining BSA work with pedestrian route improvement will promote integrated public transport plus walking
                                                                                                              II, IV          7 & 10          4F.Pr11, 4O.Po1
trips


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                      Impact
                                                                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                  Neutral)

Bus users                                                                                                                                         Positive
Pedestrians                                                                                                                                       Positive


                                                                                                                                                  Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                            (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                  Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                     Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                         Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                   Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                        Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Disabled, women, BME, children and older people                                                 Positive




        :
Bus priority
5.46 Bus priority schemes are proposed on corridors carrying some of the most
     significant, high volume bus services. There are four London Bus Initiative (LBI)
     routes in the Borough; services 57, 65, 131, 281. The following forms detail
     schemes which would increase reliability and reduce average journey times on
     these routes (see forms 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34). Other important routes like the
     X26, 213 and 71 will also benefit from these schemes. The Council has set itself
     a target to improve bus journey times of LBI routes relative to performance in
     February 2004 and these schemes are the key measure required if the target
     is to be met. Chapter 9 provides the target detail (target 4 in table 9.1) and
     enforcement arrangements including RBK’s Service Level Agreement with TfL are
     outlined in chapter 7.
5.47 The route of the X26 service to Heathrow, running in this Borough from
     Worcester Park to New Malden and Kingston is treated as a single bus priority
     corridor. Priority measures would also assist the 131, 213, K5, K9 and K10
     services. The combined bus passenger demand is approximately 16,000
     boarders. 3
5.48 Enforcement on these and existing bus lanes will be a high priority for the Council
     as detailed in paragraphs 3.39 and expanded on in 7.196 to 7.202. The total range
     of the bus priority programme is outlined on forms 29 to 38.
5.49 An enhanced bus service running along the spine of the Borough from
     Chessington World of Adventures (CWOA) through Surbiton to Kingston is
     proposed for feasibility work. The southern terminus would include a modest
     park and ride facility at the north car park of the World of Adventures and
     buses would operate a limited stop service along the A243 before serving
     Surbiton station then running non-stop to Kingston town centre. This would be
     complemented by publicity and branding that identified the service as part of an
     integrated rail/bus combination, making it possible to market Surbiton as an ideal
     rail station for accessing both Kingston town centre and CWOA. A minimum 15
     minute frequency is envisaged. The express service and interchange arrangements
     would provide a much more attractive option to car owning travellers from the
     south west quadrant who can reach Surbiton by rail. Many currently perceive
     the onward stage by bus to Kingston town centre or CWOA as off putting and
     therefore opt to drive.



3
    Halcrow Rapid Transit Study Phase 1B, page 55

                                                                              5.19
5.50 The Council has noted London Buses rationale for converting the former 726
     service to a limited stop X26 express service. It believes the proposal could
     offer similar benefits. However local accessibility should not be sacrificed. The
     proposal includes retention of the existing 71 service which provides accessibility
     in the Chessington area. Frequency for that service would be determined by
     London Buses after accounting for some passenger abstraction to the express
     service. The Council would seek agreement to at least 200 dedicated P&R
     spaces adjacent to the bus stops at CWOA as part of the green travel plan for
     the expanded CWOA operation. This would form a developer contribution to
     a transport improvement that could provide significant mode shift potential for
     CWOA. That is a priority given that CWOA hope to raise visitor numbers from
     1.2 million to 1.7 million during the decade. The success of P&R from CWOA
     over the 10 week Christmas period provides a good springboard for an all year
     round facility.
5.51 Work completed during study of rapid transit options identified a series of
     feasible bus priority schemes along the route. These would increase speed
     and reliability of the express service and seven other services running between
     Surbiton and Kingston via Penrhyn Road and the schemes have sufficient merit to
     be implemented as soon as possible, as proposed in form 30. The wider proposal
     on P&R and the express Bus is reliant on joint working with London Buses and
     costs would be defined during that process.
5.52 In London, lost bus mileage due to traffic congestion fell from 1.4 to 1.3 per cent
     in the July to September 2004 quarter. RBK will work to reduce this further
     through measures related to the Network Management Duty.




  5.20
Form Number            29                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
                                A243 Brighton Road / Victoria Road, Surbiton junction - new traffic signals with SVD
Location:
                                bus priority
Dates:                          2005/06 - 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



Bus routes 71, 465, 514, 515, K1, K3 & K4 turn in and out of Victoria Road onto Brighton Road serving Surbiton
Town Centre and Surbiton Station. There are up to 18 buses per hour in the peak).
Due to heavy traffic flows and manoeuvrability issues caused by a tight radii corner, they are often delayed at this
busy junction.
Junction improvements would address the issue of inadequate roadspace at this junction for buses turning left out
of Victoria Road into Brighton Road whilst also improving the situation for general traffic. Reductions in the
variability of bus journey times would add to service reliability leading to improved customer satisfaction.
The works would include alterations to kerb alignment at the junction and diversion of Statutory Undertakers Plant,
the latter forming a major proportion of the costs.




                                     FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06     2006/07      2007/08      2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 20          250          700          30           1000
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                                 0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    20          250          700          30           1000
                                                                     STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                              (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                    Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)
Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            30                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
                                LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Summary of Proposal:
                                Bus Lanes between Surbiton Station and Kingston Town Centre
Location:                       Claremont Road and Maple Road/Surbiton Crescent/Surbiton Road triangle

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



Kingston Town Centre is a traditional regional retail attraction that must be allowed to develop and grow if ‘High
Street’ shopping is to compete with out of town centres such as Bluewater. A Retail Study undertaken for the
Borough as part of the K+20 Strategy identified a demand for more and bigger retail units within Kingston Town
Centre along with suppressed demand from companies that want to move to Kingston. To ensure that this growth
can be accommodated without an increase in car trips it is vital that a public transport alternative exists. Whilst the
Mayor’s commitment to improve public transport in London has made huge changes for Londoners, a centre such
as Kingston draws significantly from Surrey where public transport is not so extensive and is more expensive.
However, links to Surbiton rail station are good and do offer an alternative. This is however hampered by people’s
perception that the bus link to Kingston is poor and slow.
It is intended that a scheme to promote the ease of movement between Surbiton Station and Kingston be
undertaken through the creation of a Bus ‘Expressway’ between the two centres. There is already bus priority
close to Kingston Town Centre and along Penrhyn Road, but opportunity exists to improve this further. This could
be achieved with new facilities in Claremont Road and the triangle of Maple Road, Surbiton Road and Surbiton
Crescent that may be able to include bus lanes to provide continuous bus priority between the two centres.
The scheme would be both physical and promotional. The opportunity to provide continuous bus lanes between
the two centres would be explored. South West Trains and London Buses would also be engaged to promote the
link in every way possible. This could include a liveried or branded service for buses using the ‘Expressway’,
special through ticketing arrangements for destinations from Surrey and even a repackaging of Surbiton Station to
emphasise its closeness to Kingston as its original “Kingston Upon Railway” title did!
Existing bus priority measures would be enhanced through extension of the existing bus lane in Penrhyn Road
northwards towards Kingston onto Kingston Hall Road and southwards on roads surrounding ‘Surbiton Triangle’
(Surbiton Road/Surbiton Crescent/Maple Road) and Claremont Road, the approach to Surbiton Station.
Provision of a northbound bus lane along this main bus corridor would require alterations to existing waiting and
parking restrictions. Existing bus routes to benefit are 71, 281, 406, 418, 465; 514, 515, 515A, K1, K2, K3 & N77
(up to 37 buses per hour in each direction).



                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06      2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          160            0            0             160
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                                 0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          160            0            0             160
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6
                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)
Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            31                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY - Road space allocation and bus stop improvements
Location:                       Wood Street / Clarence Street

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:

The ‘Bus Only’ section of Wood Street / Clarence Street was created in 1989 as part of the Kingston Town Centre
Relief Road changes. It provides a wide-open street scene environment on the approach to the fully
pedestrianised section of Clarence Street.
This creates a number of problems.
•    Because of the generous road width space given to buses and taxis these vehicles appear to drive at
     unsuitable speeds which can appear intimidating to pedestrians and cyclists.
•    Although footways are reasonably wide, large queues at bus stops fill these making it difficult for pedestrians
    to pass by at these points, particularly by the Church.
•    The relatively low bus flows mean that often no vehicles are in the road. This leads to pedestrians crossing or
     walking in the road without realising it is not fully pedestrianised. Therefore there is a potential risk of conflict
     and accidents when buses, pedestrians and cyclists interact.
It is used by bus services 111, 216, 281, 285, 416, 451, 461, 513, N22 & X26 (up to 25 buses per hour in each
direction). It is also used by taxis to and from their rank alongside John Lewis’ colonnade.
The corner of Wood Street and Clarence Street forms a local hub of the London Cycle Network where routes from
the north, west and south all meet. There is also considerable cycle parking in the vicinity.
The proposed scheme will reduce the speed limit on the bus only section to 5mph through the installation of new
signage. The road surface will be renewed to provide greater distinction between the footway and carriageway.
It is hoped that these improvements will enhance pedestrian safety and reduce bus passenger injuries caused by
buses braking to avoid pedestrians inadvertently crossing the path of buses in the bus lane.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06      2006/07       2007/08      2008/09         Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0          100          100            0              200
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                     100                           100

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0          100          200            0              300
                                                                     STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                              (Requested,                    COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                    Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER                                                100           Envisaged                     Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)
Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Neutral


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            32                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY - new traffic signals with SVD bus priority
Location:                       A2043 Kingston Road / South Lane West and A2043 Kingston Road/ Westbury Road

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:

Kingston Road / South Lane West
The existing layout of the junction is a three arm T-junction. South Lane West and South Lane provide a direct link
to and from the A3 Kingston By-Pass. Kingston Road is used by buses on routes 131, K5, K9, K10, N77 & X26.
(up to 10 buses per hour). Route K5 (one bus per hour) turns right into (and left out of) South Lane West.

Traffic turning right into South Lane West from Kingston Road causes tailbacks on Kingston Road towards New
Malden, with associated delays to buses particularly in the evening peak. There is also poor visibility for vehicles
emerging from South Lane West owing to the upward gradient of the slope in both directions on Kingston Road.

There are currently no pedestrian or cycle crossing facilities at this junction. However, there have been 2 slight
injury accidents at the junction in the 36 month period 2001- 2003, one of which involved a right turning vehicle.

A study has been carried out to quantify the extent of problem, assess if signals would cause more delays to
buses they than would save and consider if the provision of traffic signals to increase capacity, reduce delays and
improve safety at the junction, linked to those signals proposed for Kingston Road/Elm Road/Westbury Road
would be appropriate.

Signalisation of the 3 arm T-junction with SVD is proposed to enhance bus priority on Kingston Road and to
overcome the delays caused by traffic waiting to turn right at the junction with South Lane West. Signalisation will
also include a pedestrian phase to improve facilities for vulnerable road users. Junction cost £135,000.

Kingston Road/ Westbury Road
The existing junction layout is that of a staggered crossroads with an additional side road entering Kingston Road
25 metres to the east. Kingston Road is used by bus routes 131, K9, K10, N77 & X26 (up to nine buses per hour
in each direction) The London Cycle Network also crosses Kingston Road at this junction.
There is a Toucan crossing with a cycle track to facilitate north south cycle crossing movement immediately to the
east of the junction. Unfortunately this crossing causes eastbound vehicles on Kingston Road to queue over the
junction, blocking access for vehicles waiting to enter and exit Elm Road, although this has been reduced to some
extent, by the introduction of yellow box junction markings. There is a bus stop to the west of Elm Road that
impairs visibility for vehicles leaving Elm Road. Elm Road itself is the only road that crosses the railway line to the
north of Kingston Road.
There have been 8 injury accidents (1 serious, 7 slight) at the junction during the 36 month period 2001-2003.
Three of these accidents involved right turning vehicles.

The proposed signalisation of the junctions with Westbury and Elm Road with SVD will enhance bus priority and
overcome entry and exit blocking caused by the Toucan crossing located 10m south east of the junction with
Westbury Road. As part of these signalisation works the existing Toucan crossing will be relocated and a
pedestrian phase introduced to improve facilities for vulnerable road users. Junction cost £175,000.
                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06      2006/07      2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          310            0            0             310
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                                  0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          310            0            0             310
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            33                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                   LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Location:                       A2043 Kingston Road / St Johns Road - new traffic signals with SVD bus priority
Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



This part of Kingston Road is within the St John’s Industrial Area. The existing junction layout is a three arm T-
junction and St John’s Road is the only vehicular access to two major superstores (Homebase and Courts) for
both customers and deliveries. Kingston Road is used by buses on routes 131, K5, K9, K10 N77 & X26 (up to 10
buses per hour)

Opposite St John’s Road is a parade of local shops, including a Post Office, which attract a significant volume of
passing trade. The shops have wide private forecourts, which some currently use for staff parking. Parking in
Kingston Road associated with these shops narrows the carriageway so that vehicles turning right into St John’s
Road block through traffic including buses. A narrow, sub-standard right turn lane was introduced as part of the
works carried out in 2003/04. However, this facility only works when there is no parking on Kingston Road.

There have been 2 slight injury accidents in the 36 month period 2001-2003, one involving a collision with a
parked vehicle and the other with a vehicle waiting to turn right.
The scheme proposals are:
•    Provision of a separate slip road to serve shops with parking provision within this new slip road
•    Provision of a right turn lane in Kingston Road to maintain traffic flow past vehicles waiting to turn right into
     St John’s Road
•    Introduction of waiting and loading restrictions in Kingston Road to prevent parked vehicles blocking through
     traffic movement
•    Introduction of cycle parking facilities to increase the use of cycling for local shopping trips
•    A number of environmental improvements such as tree planting, footway surfacing improvements, new street
     furniture to help the shopping parade become a more pleasant place in which to shop, boost trade and so
     increase the use by both local residents and passing trade.


                                   FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06      2006/07       2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 0           150            0             0            150
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                        150                                       150

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    0           300            0             0            300
                                                                     STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                              (Requested,                    COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                    Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

                                                                                         Subject to Planning permission
PARTNERS                                            150            Requested
                                                                                                      S106
OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            34                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Location:                       Boroughwide LBPN bus priority improvements - scheme review

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



Through the LBI and LBPN processes most through bus routes in Kingston have been examined and significant
changes have been introduced. Some limited post implementation review has taken place and it is felt that
significant improvements might be achieved through more thorough reassessment.
It is proposed that the bus route corridors, 65, 57, 71, 131, & 281, which have received bus priority improvements
over recent years, should be re-examined. It is expected that any resulting changes will be of a minor nature.
This could be achieved through an abbreviated form of the WRIP procedure undertaken by RBK but engaging all
of the normal partners.
Although only £100K is bid, this is intended to primarily cover the cost of investigation and minor changes. More
major changes that are identified would form the basis of future bids through the Annual Progress Report/BSP
process.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06     2006/07      2007/08    2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                               0          100           0           0            100
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                              0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                  0          100           0           0            100
                                                                   STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            35                                               Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Location:                       A308 London Road / Albert Road junction improvements

Dates:                          2007/08 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



As part of the Route 131 WRIP, a scheme to provide the signalisation of the London Road / Albert Road junction
was developed. This was proposed in order to improve traffic flows on London’s Road and enhance the benefits
of the existing bus lane along London Road. The scheme would also alleviate the problems of rat running traffic
through the adjacent residential roads. This rat running traffic impacts upon buses on Cambridge Road by
emerging into the existing bus lane, disrupting and delaying buses.
Considerable work has already been undertaken by JMP the LBI term consultant on this scheme. This will involve
justification and reasonably detailed (1:200) plans that would allow a quick pick-up of the scheme. The
neighbourhood committee have already considered this proposal and given it their support subject to public
consultation.
Bus services 57,85,131,213, N77 and X26 will directly benefit from this scheme




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07      2007/08   2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          0            25       225           250
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                            100           100

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          0            25       325           350
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,               COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval obtained in principle


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7
                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr6


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number            36                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Location:                       Fountain Roundabout – Roundabout signalisation and new pedestrian crossings

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:

Fountain Roundabout experiences severe delays during peak periods to bus routes K9, K10 and X26 which travel
from Malden Road to Kingston Road, bus routes 213 and K1 which travel from Malden Road to High Street and
bus route 131 which travels from Kingston Road to Burlington Road.
Delays to buses and general traffic are also caused by pedestrian movement and lack of clarity of the junction
layout.
Signalisation on all four arms of the Roundabout is proposed to alleviate current manoeuvrability issues for buses
resulting from their exits being blocked. Installation of new signalised pedestrian crossings on Kingston Road and
the High Street are also proposed to enhance pedestrian safety. It is anticipated that this will improve the
operational efficiency of the junction and reduce congestion/delays experienced by all traffic. Pedestrian crossing
movements will also be rationalised.
The works would consist of the following:-
1. Convert existing central island to staggered pelican crossing;
2. Cutback island on Fountain Roundabout (maximum width 2.7m);
3. Cutback footway (maximum width 0.5m) at the junction of Kingston Road / Presburg Road;
4. Cutback footway (maximum width 2.1m) to retain existing flare on corner of High Street / Burlington Road;
5. Modification to existing central island;
6. Realignment of kerb line;
7. New proposed junction layout at Presburg Road includes footway build out and cutback;
8. Install new signalised pedestrian crossing facilities on Kingston Road and High Street as part of the
   signalisation.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06       2006/07     2007/08     2008/09        Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 0          250           0          0              250
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    0          250           0          0              250
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                    None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)
Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number         37                                                      Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
                                St Mark’s Hill / Victoria Road / Claremont Road – Surbiton Station Interchange
Location:
                                Improvements
Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:



The proposed scheme would address the operational problems of the bus and rail interchange on St Mark’s Hill,
Surbiton which, whilst affecting general traffic, also causes considerable delays to bus routes 71, 465, 514, 515,
K1, K3 and K4.

The current siting of the westbound bus stop on St Mark’s Hill and the eastbound bus stop on Victoria Road are
inaccessible for buses to load and unload passengers which hampers the efficient passenger bus and interchange
at Surbiton Station .

It is proposed to relocate the bus stops whilst at the same time increasing the diameter of the Victoria Road / St
Mark’s Hill roundabout to discourage its use by pedestrians.

The improvements should reduce congestion and delays for both buses and general traffic whilst increasing safety
for pedestrians and other road users in the vicinity of the Station.




                                     FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06      2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0          150           0            0               150
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0          150           0            0               150
                                                                      STATUS
                                                   AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                     (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                     None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER




         :
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: LBPN Partnership, RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks: Committee approval


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Form Number          38                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL BUS PRIORITY
Location:                       Various schemes under £100k

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:

Dickerage Road / Clarence Ave Roundabout

Visitors to local shops at ‘The Triangle’ park on the carriageway along Clarence Avenue narrowing the
carriageway obstructing the movement of buses and general traffic and causing delays to buses, especially Route
213. It is proposed to extend the existing waiting restrictions eastwards along Clarence Avenue on the approach to
the roundabout to prohibit this current uncontrolled parking.

Coombe Road (between Langley Grove and Lime Grove)

Uncontrolled commuter parking on Coombe Road obstructs the general traffic flow and causes delays to bus
Route 213. Although existing waiting and loading restrictions operate between Lime Grove and Sycamore Grove
and do prevent obstructive parking in this area they encourage commuters to seek alternative parking on other
uncontrolled sections of Coombe Road. It is proposed to introduce waiting restrictions on the eastern side of
Coombe Road between Cambridge Avenue and Dell Walk whilst extending the existing restrictions on the western
side northwards to Woodside Road.

Cromwell Road / Clarence Street

Introduction of additional signage is required plus erection of guard railing at the pedestrian crossing point on
Cromwell Road to increase pedestrian awareness of bus movements in the contra-flow bus lane.

Cox Lane Bus Gate Cameras
Currently there is a two-way restriction with by-pass lanes for buses at the junction of Cox Lane with Oakcroft
Road and Sanger Avenue. Bus Route K2 (Up to 6 buses per hour)
The restriction is on the edge of the Chessington Industrial Estate and has been installed to protect the
surrounding residential areas from unwanted intrusion by HGV’s using these quiet roads as a cut through to the
main road network. Installation of cameras are required to ensure a high level of compliance


                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                             2005/06       2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0           62            0            0             62
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0           62            0            0             62
                                                                    STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                   None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        4F. Pr2
                                                                                                        II & III        3, 4 & 7        4F. Pr6



Modal Impact                                                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                             Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                                        Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                         Negative


                                                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                    Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                              Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                   Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, BME, Older People, Children and Young People                                        Positive




        :
Public transport information, safety and security
5.53 Transport for London produces ‘Local Journey Planners’ containing very clear
     and comprehensive information on all public transport modes in the area. These
     guides have been distributed by TfL to households in the Borough. 4 There are
     now ten Information Points in public locations across the borough - providing a
     direct link to the council, transport information, free email, BBC news and sport
     and a job search facility.
5.54 Fear of Crime surveys have been carried out since 1998 looking at public
     perceptions and actual crime statistics. The public transport liaison group held
     a special meeting on crime & disorder so that the views of operators could be
     incorporated into the Borough’s updated Crime & Disorder Strategy.
     That strategy includes initiatives promoted under the Mayor’s ‘Safer Travel at
     Night’ approach including a campaign around unlicensed minicab use. The Council
     will work with licensed private hire firms to improve the supply of safe late night
     transport and will look at best practice examples from Croydon and Bromley
     town centres.
5.55 Council officers, bus and rail operators, British Transport Police and the
     Metropolitan Police analysed trends in recent years. There is some problem
     with the capacity of night bus services at club closing times. Night bus capacity
     leaving Kingston is around 700 people an hour yet there can be 10,000 people at
     clubs and venues late at night in Kingston town centre. The capacity deficiency
     is especially apparent towards the Hounslow area and conversion of the 281 to
     a 24 hour service, which London Buses are now consulting on, would be highly
     beneficial. Incidents on and around buses are clustered in Kingston, New Malden
     and Surbiton town centres and there have been incidents of youths “steaming”
     through buses.
5.56 The liaison group meeting on crime & disorder concluded that schools should
     be targeted so that potential anti-social behaviour is discouraged. The rail safe
     scheme needs to be expanded and Night Clubs should develop travel plans.
     These types of initiatives will be developed and implemented during the LIP
     period in conjunction with partners. The Transport Operation Command Unit
     of the Metropolitan Police for instance plays an important role in making bus and
     taxi/minicab travel safer.



4
 Guide number L19 covers the Borough and can be obtained from TfL by calling 020 7222 1234
or visiting website www.tfl.gov.uk

                                                                                   5.21
Area Based Schemes
Town centres
5.57 Completion of all aspects of the New Malden High Street scheme is envisaged
     during 2006/7. The Council is already working closely with TfL to ensure best
     practice in terms of design and walking/cycling access to the High Street from
     the surrounding streets. This comprehensive scheme which is integrated with
     improvements at New Malden station will improve the social, environmental
     and economic fabric of the High Street and surrounding area. It will improve
     conditions for buses turning at the rail station and the bus stops in the High
     Street: see Forms 39 and 40 which outline the remaining stages of work
     proposed during the LIP period.
5.58 A major scheme is proposed to transform transport and access arrangements in
     Tolworth District Centre, allowing radical improvements to the local environment
     and public realm. Tolworth is currently the Borough’s least satisfactory district
     centre, due in large part to being divided by the dual carriageway A240 and cut
     off from convenient linkage to its local rail station by the A3. Vacant units in the
     centre numbered 22 in 2001 though this dropped to five at the time of the 2004
     survey. The Council commissioned an audit of the pedestrian environment in the
     Centre by ‘Living Streets’. The Council supports most of the proposals in their
     report. Form number 41 outlines an overall proposal which will be submitted
     to the stage 1 TfL assessment of area based schemes and, if approved, would
     lead to funding to develop and design the scheme to a level sufficient for TfL
     decide whether funding can be approved for its implementation. If all stages are
     approved this could lead to a scheme starting construction in the period from
     2007/8 onwards.




  5.22
Form Number            39                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TOWN CENTRES
Location:                       New Malden High Street

Dates:                          2005/06

Description of Main Elements:


The High Street is the centrepiece of New Malden and performs a number of essential roles: it is the district
centre, local shopping centre, and provides access to a rail station and a local leisure centre. It is also a
significant traffic corridor and is part of the 213 bus route linking New Malden to Kingston and to Sutton. It is the
centre of many community activities and is known as “The Village” by local residents.

The main aim of the proposals is to revitalise and transform the High Street through the introduction of a
comprehensive package of innovative measures. These will be geared towards maintaining and improving:
economic viability of local businesses, environmental amenity, road safety, pedestrian facilities, cycle access, bus
facilities, feelings of personal safety and security. The measures will reduce congestion and improve the overall
efficiency of the corridor.

The scheme will improve the physical environment, reduce the adverse effects of through traffic, improve
conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, disabled, buses, encourage more journeys on foot, cycle and bus, improve
personal security and safety, particularly for travel at night.

The works are being undertaken in two phases -

Phase 1: Commenced in 2004/2005 -
the installation of the new lighting in the centre of the carriageway and secondary lighting on the footway; the
introduction of the central strip, parking and servicing bays and new carriageway surfacing.

Phase 2: 2005/2006 -
complete resurfacing of the footways in conservation paving, construction of gateway treatments and at grade
crossing points, the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in the High Street, introduction of co-ordinated street
furniture and areas of landscaping. These improvements will lead to a change in the perception of the street
reinforcing the “village concept” with associated environmental, safety and security improvements which will
encourage more people to combine their shopping with other leisure activities in the High Street. This will also
encourage more night-time economy and activities. The scheme will result in a more “continental” street scene
and use of the street, which will promote more community spirit and contribute strongly to the well being of “The
Village”.

                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 50         0             0            0             50
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                            885        0             0            0             885

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    935        0             0            0            935 *
                                                                    STATUS
                                                  AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                    (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES                                   885           approved
PARTNERS

OTHER



         * funding shortfall of £150k under discussion with Tfl
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: RBK Traffic Manager
Dependencies and Risks:


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                               MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                               Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                               Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                               3 Po5
                                                                                                                               4.G Po2
                                                                                               VI              6 & 12          4.I Pr 2 & 8
                                                                                               IV              7&9             4.G Pr 15 & 17
Modal Impact                                                                                                                        Impact
                                                                                                                                    (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                    Neutral)

Pedestrians, cyclists and buses                                                                                                     Positive


                                                                                                                                    Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                    Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                       Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                           Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                     Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                          Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Children, Older People and Disabled                                        Positive




        :
Form Number          40                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TOWN CENTRES
Location:                       New Malden High Street – Paving improvements

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:


Phase 1 and 2 of the scheme is to revitalise and transform the High Street. This will be completed in 2005/06
through the introduction of a comprehensive package of innovative measures geared towards maintaining and
improving: economic viability of local businesses, environmental amenity, road safety, pedestrian facilities, cycle
access, bus facilities, feelings of personal safety and security. The measures will reduce congestion and improve
the overall efficiency of the corridor.

Further works to be undertaken in 2006/7 and 2007/8 include:
A/ Extension of improved paving in New Malden High Street between Dukes Avenue and Alric Avenue at a cost
   of £100k in 2006/07 and £300k in 2007/08.

B/ The “GEHL” standard Review at a cost of £80k in 2006/07.
C/ Improvements to pedestrian and cycle access routes to the High Street at a cost of £100k in 2006/07.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0         280          300           0            580
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                           0          0            0            0              0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0         280          300           0            580
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                               MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                               Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                               Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                               3 Po5, 4G.Po2
                                                                                               III             7
                                                                                               VI              12              4.I Pr 2 & 8
Modal Impact                                                                                                                        Impact
                                                                                                                                    (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                    Neutral)

Pedestrians, Cyclists, PTW users, bus users                                                                                         Positive


                                                                                                                                    Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                    Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                       Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                           Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                     Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                          Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Children, Older People and Disabled                                        Positive




        :
Streets for People
5.59 In outer London purely residential roads are often low density and do not
     normally have the range of functions needed to suit or justify the area based
     approach. The Council established its first home zones in Norbiton and New
     Malden during 2003 and 2004. The results at Norbiton in terms of vehicle
     flows and speeds were a drop of 20% in traffic levels but no significant change in
     speeds. Resident’s views have also been reviewed and will be incorporated in final
     modifications. Home zones are expensive relative to the number of residents
     benefiting and at this stage the Council sees the need to prioritise other forms of
     area based scheme covering housing estates and similar areas where significant
     social inclusion issues apply (see forms 43 to 45). It also wishes to continue
     improving town centre streets (see form 42) and to place more emphasis on
     shopping parades (see form 54 which appears under accessibility at the end of this
     chapter). However further home zones may well be considered in the years after
     2008/09.




                                                                              5.23
Form Number        41                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TOWN CENTRES – Area Based Scheme
Location:                       Tolworth Broadway

Dates:                          2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:


This scheme for Tolworth Broadway/Ewell Road is the key element of a comprehensive approach to tackling the
pedestrian accessibility, safety and environmental problems that seriously detract from Tolworth’s performance
and viability as a district shopping, community, leisure and business centre. It seeks to improve the pedestrian
environment, safety, public transport and cycling accessibility in and around Tolworth District Centre whilst taking
into account the servicing and delivery needs of businesses.

The entire project, also covering part of Ewell Road to the rear of Tolworth Tower, Tolworth Roundabout and
Kingston Road up to Tolworth Railway Station, is phased over a seven-year period.

Phase 1 of the project commenced in 2004/05 with BSP funding support for a CCTV camera surveillance system
throughout the project area together with improved road safety measures outside Our Lady Immaculate primary
school at the Ewell Road/Tolworth Broadway junction. Phase 1 of the project also involved traffic modelling and
the preparation of some preliminary outline layout design options for the Tolworth Broadway / Ewell Road section
of the project reporting through a local working group..

Phase 2 of the project will involve the Step 1 submission under TfL’s Area Based Scheme guidance in order to
secure “in principle” support for scheme development for the Tolworth Broadway / Ewell Road section. It is
intended that this be submitted in early September 2005.

Phase 3 (or Step2) scheme development, detailed design and public consultation is provisionally programmed to
be undertaken from 2006/07

Phase 4 (or Step 3) implementation works for Tolworth Broadway / Ewell Road could be carried out in 2007/08
and 2008/09 at the estimated costs shown later in this form.

Main elements are:

    •    Removal of central barriers to allow more freedom of movement within the shopping area for pedestrians,
         building on planned surface crossing points to replace a subway.
    •    Transformation of the local environment and public realm with upgraded paving, street furniture, signage
         and landscaping within a central boulevard.
    •    Realignment of the carriageway and reallocation of highway space to allow provision of a dedicated cycle
         lane, incorporation of bus priority measures and revised parking and servicing provision.
    •    Introduction of a 20 mph speed limit through the Broadway area (thereby extending the 20 mph zone
         scheme being implemented in the vicinity of Our Lady Immaculate Primary School.)
    •    Improved pedestrian crossing arrangements at 4 road junctions on Ewell Road

It is intended that a further complementary area based scheme for the rest of the project area could be undertaken
from 2009/10 onwards, particularly relating to the area south of the A3.


Continued overleaf
Form Number        41 ctd                                             London Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TOWN CENTRES – Area Based Scheme
Location:                       Tolworth Broadway, Royal Borough of Kingston
Dates:                          2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  30      260         1000          1500          2790
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             20       40           40           50            150

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     50      300         1040          1550          2940
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

                                                                                       Neighbourhood Gold Zone
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                     90         Requested
                                                                                      funding, Capital Programme
PARTNERS (please specify)                             10         Requested            Local Business contributions
OTHER (please specify)                                26         Approved                Section 106 Funding
                                                      24         Requested                  Contributions
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

The key delivery partner is TfL in providing the required level of capital funding to cover the costs of this comprehensive approach to regenerating the Tolworth Broadway
area. The scheme is subject to a step I submission under the areas based schemes approach. TfL will then decide whether the justification for the scheme merits further
development work. The scheme is being overseen by a dedicated Task Force. This comprises representatives of the Council, local business, residents, the police, TfL
Street Management and interest groups which has been meeting over the past 2 years.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                         MTS Proposal/ Policy
                                                                                                                   Priority Area       Target Number
                                                                                                                                                         number (Appendix C)

The scheme will help deliver the following key priority area in the MTS:
Policy 3.5 through improving public transport access and the pedestrian environment of Tolworth district centre,
one of London’s recognised town centres in The London Plan. It will help ensure that Tolworth district centre
continues to deliver a diverse range of activities, from an accessible location on the public transport system.                                          3 Po5
Through securing improvements to pedestrian and cycle access and through enhanced bus services and links
to Tolworth Station it should encourage a reduction in dependence on the private car.

Proposal 4F.6 and Proposal 4F.8 through incorporating bus priority measures within the scheme to reduce bus                                              4F Pr6 & 8
delay along LBI Route 281.

Policy 4G.2 through balancing street space allocation for road safety initiatives to support pedestrians and
                                                                                                                   I, II, IV, V, VI,                     4G.Po2
cyclists whilst also accommodating the needs of bus passengers, commercial vehicle operators and business                              1, 3, 4, 7, 10,
                                                                                                                   VII
access over the needs of private motorists.                                                                                            12, 13

Proposal 4G.9 through extending a 20mph zone throughout the project area.
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr9 & 10

Proposal 4G.11 through the scheme incorporating environmental street improvements for the district centre.
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr11

Proposal 4G.15 and Proposal 4G.17 through reviewing and implementing parking and loading controls to
ensure that bus priority is not compromised by the needs of disabled motorists and servicing and delivery
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr15 &17
needs of businesses.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal/ Policy
                                                                                                                  Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  number (Appendix C)

Proposal 4I.2 by implementing specific walking measures and ensuring improved personal safety and security                                        4I.Pr2
for vulnerable groups through the removal of a subway, new surface crossings and improved street lighting and
design.
Proposal 4I.8 through the removal of central barriers, guard rails and subway and installation of accessible                                      4I.Pr8
footways and crossings.

Proposal 4J.4 and Proposal 4J.7 through improving cycle access to Tolworth District Centre, especially across
the A3 junction, and by incorporating cycle lanes and secure cycle parking facilities within the busy Broadway                                    4J.Pr4 & 7
area, the scheme will support the implementation of the LCN.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)

Pedestrians, Cyclists, Buses, Trains, Commercial vehicle delivery and servicing
                                                                                                                                                       Positive

Private motorists
                                                                                                                                                       Negative

                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Positive

Positive                                                                                                                                               Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:             Women, Children and Young People, Older People, Disabled People.                                        Positive
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

The key delivery partner is TfL in providing the required level of capital funding to cover the costs of this comprehensive approach to regenerating the Tolworth Broadway
area. The scheme is subject to a step I submission under the areas based schemes approach. TfL will then decide whether the justification for the scheme merits further
development work. The scheme is being overseen by a dedicated Task Force. This comprises representatives of the Council, local business, residents, the police, TfL
Street Management and interest groups which has been meeting over the past 2 years.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                         MTS Proposal/ Policy
                                                                                                                   Priority Area       Target Number
                                                                                                                                                         number (Appendix C)

The scheme will help deliver the following key priority area in the MTS:
Policy 3.5 through improving public transport access and the pedestrian environment of Tolworth district centre,
one of London’s recognised town centres in The London Plan. It will help ensure that Tolworth district centre
continues to deliver a diverse range of activities, from an accessible location on the public transport system.                                          3 Po5
Through securing improvements to pedestrian and cycle access and through enhanced bus services and links
to Tolworth Station it should encourage a reduction in dependence on the private car.

Proposal 4F.6 and Proposal 4F.8 through incorporating bus priority measures within the scheme to reduce bus                                              4F Pr6 & 8
delay along LBI Route 281.

Policy 4G.2 through balancing street space allocation for road safety initiatives to support pedestrians and
                                                                                                                   I, II, IV, V, VI,                     4G.Po2
cyclists whilst also accommodating the needs of bus passengers, commercial vehicle operators and business                              1, 3, 4, 7, 10,
                                                                                                                   VII
access over the needs of private motorists.                                                                                            12, 13

Proposal 4G.9 through extending a 20mph zone throughout the project area.
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr9 & 10

Proposal 4G.11 through the scheme incorporating environmental street improvements for the district centre.
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr11

Proposal 4G.15 and Proposal 4G.17 through reviewing and implementing parking and loading controls to
ensure that bus priority is not compromised by the needs of disabled motorists and servicing and delivery
                                                                                                                                                         4G.Pr15 &17
needs of businesses.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal/ Policy
                                                                                                                  Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  number (Appendix C)

Proposal 4I.2 by implementing specific walking measures and ensuring improved personal safety and security                                        4I.Pr2
for vulnerable groups through the removal of a subway, new surface crossings and improved street lighting and
design.
Proposal 4I.8 through the removal of central barriers, guard rails and subway and installation of accessible                                      4I.Pr8
footways and crossings.

Proposal 4J.4 and Proposal 4J.7 through improving cycle access to Tolworth District Centre, especially across
the A3 junction, and by incorporating cycle lanes and secure cycle parking facilities within the busy Broadway                                    4J.Pr4 & 7
area, the scheme will support the implementation of the LCN.


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)

Pedestrians, Cyclists, Buses, Trains, Commercial vehicle delivery and servicing
                                                                                                                                                       Positive

Private motorists
                                                                                                                                                       Negative

                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Positive

Positive                                                                                                                                               Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:             Women, Children and Young People, Older People, Disabled People.                                        Positive
Form Number         42                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TOWN CENTRES - Area Based Schemes
Location:                       Kingston Town Centre Access Controls

Dates:                          2006/07

Description of Main Elements:




The heart of Kingston Town Centre is predominantly pedestrian dominated. Some roads have had all traffic
excluded, some are time share with loading allowed at certain times. Others, although allowing free access for
vehicles at all times, exist as ‘virtual’ pedestrian streets due to the high number of pedestrians throughout the town
centre. The restricted streets traditionally depended on manual ‘lift up’ bollards and in some places just signs.
These tend to be circumvented by certain vehicles wanting, but not entitled to, access.
Following funding being granted in 2004/2005, automatic bollards were introduced into a section of Clarence
Street and Fife Road, an area with very high servicing and pedestrian activity and funding has been granted in
2005/06 for a detailed report on the trial. The trial automatic bollard system introduced is one of several other
trials in the country and the first one in a London Borough. This type of bollard, widely used in Italy, appears to be
overcoming some of the major concerns over existing automatic bollard controls in this country such as
maintenance, safety for pedestrians and vehicles, impacts and general reliability of the system. The system has
various background controls such as connection to the Council’s CCTV control room to monitor vehicles in and out
of the restricted area, and monitoring systems of the operating elements of the bollard. The bollards are also
protected by 24hour call out, maintenance programmes and extended warranties that ensure the system has a
long shelf life.
Initial outcomes are very positive and it would appear that the scheme has successfully achieved its objectives of
removing vehicles from the area during the times of restriction, only permitting vehicles requiring access such as
emergency services, cash deliveries and street cleansers. The feel of the area has been transformed towards a
more relaxed and secure pedestrian environment, and undoubtedly been welcomed by visitors to the area.
The security of the systems in the remaining areas leaves a lot to be desired and illegal access by all types of
vehicles creates safety hazards for the visitors to the Town Centre. Despite the vigilance of Council staff and best
efforts of the local police the current system in these areas is inadequate. It is proposed to extend the automatic
bollard controls to the uncontrolled section of Clarence Street and Little Wood Street that connects the largest of
the shopping complexes in the Town Centre, the Bentalls Centre and John Lewis. The controls would also cover
the Ancient Market Place and Memorial Square which lie within the town centre’s conservation area.


                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                              2005/06     2006/07      2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 0         225           0            0             225
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    0         225           0            0             225
                                                                   STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                    None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Kingston First Business Improvement District
Dependencies: The scheme reduces dependency on the Police




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                              MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                              Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                              Number (Appendix C)

In addition to MTS priorities, causal chain 3 on page 223 of the Council’s 2006/07 BSP submission shows the                                   4I. Pr2
                                                                                                              VI              12 & 7
range of cross-cutting Mayoral objectives addressed by this proposal.                                                                         4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                       Impact
                                                                                                                                                   (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                   Neutral)

Walking                                                                                                                                            Positive


                                                                                                                                                   Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                   Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                      Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                          Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                    Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                         Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                All target groups                                                                                Positive




        :
Form Number         43                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            STREETS FOR PEOPLE – Area Based Schemes
Location:                       Beaconsfield Road / Derby Road / Broomfield Road Area

Dates:                          2007/08 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:




The residential area of Beaconsfield Road / Derby Road / Broomfield Road Area in Surbiton form a triangle
bounded on its their north eastern side by King Charles Road and the south-western side by the A220 Ewell Road.
The geographical area consists of some 212 properties, with a population of over 400 residents.
There have always been parking problems in the area due partly to the lack of parking provision along the A240
itself for residents and customers of the local shops and students attending courses at the Hollyfield Centre. Due
to the extension of Controlled Parking in Surbiton District Centre and the recent introduction of waiting restrictions
along Hollyfield Road, these parking problems have been exacerbated.
The aim of this bid is to undertake initial consultation with local residents in 2007/08 on how best to address their
needs and tackle the problems. Once a preferred option has been agreed works will start 2008/09.
Whilst primarily aimed at reducing car dominance in the area through segregation of parking and pedestrian areas,
maximising space for the latter, it is hoped to incorporate a wide range of other streetscape improvements. These
will include:
   enhanced levels of street lighting
   removal or replacement of obsolete street furniture to minimise clutter
   installation of seating areas and complementary planting




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08      2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0         0            30           220            250
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0         0            30           220            250
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                     None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: The scheme is subject to a step I submission under the areas based schemes approach. TfL will then decide whether the justification for the
scheme merits further development work.


Dependencies and Risks: Public consultation process


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                Priority Area    Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                  4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                V & VI           12 & 13
                                                                                                                                                  4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)
Walking, cycling and public transport                                                                                                                  Positive
Car use restrained                                                                                                                                     Positive
                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                             Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older people, Disabled                                                                               Positive




        :
Form Number            44                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                   LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            STREETS FOR PEOPLE – Area Based Schemes
Location:                       Browns Road Area

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:




Browns Road/Alpha Road is located on the south western edge of the affluent Berrylands area of Surbiton. The
Index of Multiple Deprivation score for the ward as a whole is 11775. However, the Browns Road/Alpha Road
area can be identified as an area of social deprivation where small industrial premises are located close to
Council housing. Many of the small industrial units have struggled to remain in business in recent years.
A petition, submitted to the Council by local residents, has requested that a scheme be developed to address the
dominance of the motor car in the area. Speed of traffic and unrestricted parking are particular problems.
It is accepted that there is a poor street environment in the area. Council officers believe that a home zone style
approach, redefining the purpose of the highway by removing footways and creating echelon parking bays, will
benefit both local residents and the majority of road users. The newly creating shared space for the movement of
people and social activity would make a valuable improvement to the quality of life for residents in this locality.
The scheme may also remove through traffic between Browns Road and King Charles Crescent.




                                   FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08     2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0        30          210           0            240
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             0        0            0            0             0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0        30          210           0            240
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                     None
BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Consultation with and participation by residents would be a key element of a successful scheme. The residents and local businesses are both partners and a source of
risk for this type of scheme which relies on community support and ‘ownership’ if it is to provide all the intended benefits.




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                               Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                                  4G.Po2
                                                                                                               III, V & VI       12 & 13          4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                                                  4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)
Walking, cycling and public transport                                                                                                                  Positive
Car use restrained                                                                                                                                     Positive
                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                             Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older people, children, Disabled                                                                     Positive




        :
Form Number          45                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            STREETS FOR PEOPLE – Area Based Scheme
Location:                       Station Estate

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



The Station Estate is located at the eastern boundary of the Borough and in fact is accessed via roads in the
London Borough of Sutton. The estate is purely residential and has a primary school (Green Lane) on its north-
eastern apex. There are a high number of families with children on the estate many of whom use the streets to
access the school.

The Estate has long been the subject of requests for schemes to control inappropriate vehicle speeds,
inconsiderate, obstructive and dangerous parking, which particularly reduces the ability of the emergency services
to access the area. Requests also cover the introduction of improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists,
facilities to assist those with mobility handicaps and improvements to the residential environment.

By its nature the streets on the Estate have a valuable amenity role as social spaces, but this role is being lost
owing to the predominance of cars. The aim of the project is to increase social inclusion by reducing this vehicle
domination to achieve a balance between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

Improvements particular to the area e.g. shared surface areas, parking controls at junctions, designated parking
areas, planting areas and new street trees, improved street lighting and a 20 mph speed limit will be developed in
partnership with the local community to create a safer, cleaner, more attractive and accessible street environment.

The area has been prioritised over other areas in the neighbourhood because of its location on the extreme
periphery of the Borough, self contained nature and the high level of requests from residents to address the multi-
layered problems.




                                     FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06   2006/07       2007/08      2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0          50          250          120            420
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                               0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0          50          250          120            420
                                                                   STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                            (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                  Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: The scheme is subject to a step I submission under the areas based schemes approach. TfL will then decide whether the justification for the
scheme merits further development work.


Dependencies and Risks: Consultation with and participation by residents would be a key element of a successful scheme. The residents and local businesses are both
partners and a source of risk for this type of scheme which relies on community support and ‘ownership’ if it is to provide all the intended benefits.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                  MTS Proposal / policy
                                                                                                                Priority Area    Target Number
                                                                                                                                                  Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                 1, 7, 10, 12 &   4I. Pr2
                                                                                                                V & VI
                                                                                                                                 13               4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                           Impact
                                                                                                                                                       (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                       Neutral)
Walking, cycling and public transport                                                                                                                  Positive
Car use restrained                                                                                                                                     Positive

                                                                                                                                                       Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                 (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                       Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                          Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                              Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                        Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                             Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older people, Disabled and mobility impaired, Children                                               Positive




        :
Station Access
5.60 A large number of improvements to walking and cycling access to stations have
     been completed in recent years. These include works on the highway and
     installation of covered cycle parking on station property, in partnership with
     Network Rail and South West Trains. Works at Surbiton station won awards
     for their quality. Accessibility into and within stations for people with disabilities
     is also very important in terms of furthering equality, social inclusion and modal
     shift. Accessibility is about more than simply-step free access. The Council will
     continue working with Network Rail and South West Trains (SWT) to achieve
     features such as induction loops, tactile paving and additional and more visible
     Help and Information points in stations as modernisations and refurbishments are
     completed. Some more challenging schemes are proposed in coming years to
     provide disabled access to key stations around the Borough.
5.61 Only Surbiton is fully DDA compliant at present. Working with TfL London
     Rail, SWELTRAC, Network Rail and South West Trains, the Council hope to
     see a £0.5m + scheme start at Kingston station in 2005/06 and be completed
     in 2006/07. The first phase would include a re-arranged booking hall and main
     entrance plus much improved cycle parking. In 2006/07 installation of lifts to both
     platforms is planned with a major contribution from the Df T accessibility budget.
     Such improvements are a priority of the RBK Community Plan and very much
     in line with the K+20 plan to make the station a creditable gateway to the town
     centre.
5.62 Chessington South station has been assessed for disabled access improvements
     through joint working with South West Trains and a relatively low cost scheme
     should be completed in 2006/07. Chessington South is an important station
     priority for DDA provision because, being the end of the line it has a larger
     catchment than other stations on that line. In addition it is the rail station for
     Chessington World of Adventures (CWOA).            Based on a modal split survey
     for visitors to CWOA in summer 2003, 6.4% arrived by rail. With around 1.2
     to 1.3 million visitors per year that equals around 80,000 by rail. Very few will
     be registered disabled but a DDA compliant station could cater to suppressed
     demand from registered disabled visitors and would also benefit a wider swathe
     of people with lesser mobility impairment and those pushing prams, buggies etc.
5.63 Another low cost scheme at Norbiton station to provide disabled access to
     the Kingston bound platform would make this station available to wheelchair
     users. In the longer term Tolworth station has also been identified as requiring
     access improvements. The basic similarity of station access schemes and some

   5.24
uncertainty about cost levels at individual stations prior to design work means that
a single form (No. 46) covering all such proposals. SWELTRAC have played a big
role in station access over recent years so much of the bidding for funds will co-
ordinated by them.




                                                                          5.25
Form Number            46                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            STATION ACCESS
Location:                       Access Improvements to Rail Stations in the Borough

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2006/07

Description of Main Elements:

Introduction
Not all stations are accessible and whilst improvements have been carried out in 2003-04 and especially in 2004-
05 to station forecourts and approaches at Kingston, Norbiton, Chessington South, Chessington North, Surbiton
and Berrylands, and works are in hand for Malden Manor, Worcester Park, and New Malden, full access to all
platforms at most of the ten stations in the Borough is limited. Only Surbiton is entirely accessible.
Network Rail is responsible as freeholder for the station properties and they subcontract the operation and
management of the stations to South West Trains (SWT), by agreement. Specific improvement schemes are
described later in this form but it is also proposed to facilitate studies for other access improvements in partnership
with SWT, Network Rail and London Rail to establish options and costs to provide for full access. TfL London Rail
are also studying station access on a London wide basis. The Borough is willing to secure and utilise S106 funding
to schemes wherever appropriate and to play a leading role to assist in securing approvals (planning etc.) and
initiating improvement works.

Stations to be studied for improvements are:
Chessington North, Tolworth, Malden Manor, New Malden, Berrylands and Worcester Park.
Output from the studies would lead to a long term phased programme of improvement works. The feasibility study
is estimated at £80k. It is proposed that £40k would be funded by TfL, with £20k from SWT and £20k from
Network Rail. Improvement works might cost in the region of £250k to £500k per station, but funding for this is not
sought at this early stage.

Specific improvement schemes during period of the LIP

Priority is being given to Kingston and Chessington South as the busier and/or most strategic stations which are in
more immediate need of treatment.

Kingston Station

At Kingston station SWT is carrying out improvements to the building structure to improve ramped access to
Platform 3 (London bound). There is no provision for access for people with mobility impairments to Platforms 1&
2 (for trains towards Shepperton and Twickenham). SWT with TfL London Rail and DfT have carried out a
feasibility study for provision of lift access to these platforms as part of a wider design for refurbishment to the
structure and design of the station building. This has led to a decision that lifts to all platforms are required and DfT
are preparing a scheme for introduction of lifts during 2006/07.
SWT have prepared a station improvement scheme comprising improved access to the front of the station, new
access to the taxi rank and external cycle parking facilities, improved ticket office facility and a secure cycle park
as a flagship cycle parking facility for both station users and workers and visitors to Kingston. The estimated cost
of this scheme is in the region of £650,000. Funding is being sought from partners including SWT (£170k),
Network Rail (£70k), TfL London Rail (£100k), TfL Cycling Centre of Excellence - CCE (£50k), SWELTRAC (£50k)
and Borough Resources (£208k) with the intention of undertaking as much work as possible in 2005/06 (all partner
contributions are approximate).
Chessington South Station
At Chessington South Station access improvement works to the forecourt were implemented in 2003/04 using
BSP interchange improvement funding. At all the stations on the Chessington branch line there is no provision for
access for people with mobility impairments.
(continued overleaf)
Form Number              46   (ctd)                                         Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                      LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            STATION ACCESS
Location:                       Access Improvements to Rail Stations in the Borough
Dates:                          2005/06 - 2006/07
Description of Main Elements:


Improvements are achievable at Chessington South Station by constructing a ramped access through the disused
station yard and new station entrance to the one platform that is in use. This work will be carried out by Network
Rail and SWT.
Complementing this work footway improvements funded by SWELTRAC, totalling £93,000 will be introduced on
Garrison Lane which connects the Station with the A243 Leatherhead Road. A contribution towards such
improvements is being sought through a section 106 planning obligation agreement with Chessington World of
Adventures (CWOA).
The A243 is a red route on the TLRN and TfL intend to implement accessibility works for pedestrians and cyclists
between Garrison Lane and CWOA in 2005/06. The Council is liaising with the TfL Area Team on opportunities
for joint working.

Malden Manor Station
To access the bus service in Sheephouse Way, pedestrians currently have to walk some 250m from the Station to
the bus stop. To provide interchange improvement between the buses and the rail network, improve safety and
security for pedestrians and cyclists who use the station and the local area it is proposed to provide a new link
between Malden Manor Station, the bus stop, local shops and the estate. The details are provided in the Council’s
BSP bid and would cost some £50,000 in 2006/07.
Norbiton Station
A ramp providing disabled access to the Kingston bound platform is proposed in 2006/07 at a cost of £65,000 and
is part of SWELTRAC’s Partnership Spending Plan.

                                      FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06       2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)


FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                              50           0            0             50

FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             741        145           0            0            886

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     741        195           0            0            936
                                                                      STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                       93         Approved 05/06              SWELTRAC PSP
                                                      65         Requested 06/07             SWELTRAC PSP
                                                                                        Provided from the ‘Transport
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                    208            Approved              Fund’ derived from s106
                                                                                               contributions
                                                                                      Network Rail, South West Trains,
PARTNERS (please specify)                            440         Requested 05/06       TfL London Rail, SWELTRAC
                                                                                               and TfL CCE
                                                                                               Network Rail
                                                      80         Requested 06/07             South West Trains
                                                                                              TfL London Rail
OTHER (please specify)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: South West Trains (SWT), Network Rail and London Rail, DfT.
Dependencies and Risks: To prepare for the Malden Manor scheme, negotiations are currently taking place with Enterprise Inns to acquire the small area of land in their
ownership for a nominal sum and the Council is confident that this will be resolved by the end of the summer.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                   MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                V                 7, 10            4E. Pr13


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                            Impact
                                                                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                        Neutral)
Trains                                                                                                                                                  Positive
Car use – reduced                                                                                                                                       Positive
Increased walking and cycling to stations                                                                                                               Positive
                                                                                                                                                        Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                        Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                           Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                               Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                         Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                              Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Women, Disabled, Older People                                                                         Positive




         :
Travel Plans, SRtS and Travel Awareness
5.64 Based on the strategy and action plans outlined in the School Travel Plan Strategy
     the Council has ambitious proposals to ensure School Travel Plans cover all pupils
     in the Borough and Workplace Travel Plans cover large parts of the working
     population, including the Council’s own employees. The policy context is set
     out in chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.18) and the specific targets stated under
     Target 8 in table 9.1. That table in chapter 9 also shows a number of performance
     indicators related to school and work travel and the Council has set itself
     targets to significantly increase non-car modal share for both categories of trip.
     The Council maintains an effective monitoring system for Travel Plans and will
     integrate that with the London-wide i-trace system which has the ability to store
     travel plans in a central location, record travel plan organisation information and
     produce specific reports from captured travel plan data. The database, which is
     funded by TfL, will be rolled out across all boroughs from September.
5.65 The Council is strongly committed to these travel plan programmes and recently
     appointed a permanent workplace travel plan officer after a long period of relying
     on bursary funded posts or temporary staff. It also has a school travel plan
     officer and an officer primarily responsible for travel awareness campaigns and
     co-ordination. This will strengthen RBK overall travel awareness work and ensure
     that it extends to local community events such as festivals. These are good
     opportunities to promote travel awareness and also require liaison with organisers
     to maximise the use of sustainable travel and avoid congestion in the area. Car
     sharing is promoted through the Council’s own participation in ‘LiftShare’ 5 and its
     promotion of the scheme via the Kingston Travel Plan Network.
5.66 The Council’s travel awareness work to date has already been competent enough
     to make the borough Best Good Going Borough of the Year. The extra resources
     will allow the Council to replicate the success of its TravelOptions pilot scheme
     in other parts of the Borough subject to funding being made available. Forms
     covering the Travel Plan programmes and the Council’s wider travel awareness
     programme follow. Note that the former are described in fuller detail in the RBK
     School Travel Plan and Workplace Travel Plan Strategy (chapter 8).




5
    See www.sharethecar.org for details

     5.26
Form Number          47                                                Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TRAVEL AWARENESS - Good Going, Workplace Travel Plans, Car Sharing etc
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          Continuous 2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



Promotion of recognisable “branded” travel awareness activities in the Borough to include:-
    Bike Week -
    A national event co-ordinated a Borough level in June each year to promote cycling
    ‘Good Going’ -
    To support modal shift through a variety of events
    - ’Good Going Week’ itself
    - ’Good Going’ Co-ordinator
    - ’Good Going’ Display at Kingston College and Kingston University ‘Freshers Fair’
    - ’Good Going’ at ‘Green Fair 2006’
    - ‘Good Going’ promotional material and newsletter
    Walk to School Campaign
    Walk to Work
    Workplace Travel Plan Seminars
    Kingston Council will run a series of seminars aimed a business in the borough to assist them with various
    aspects of writing and implementing successful Travel Plans.
    We hope to run these seminars in conjunction with Transport for London, in order to communicate any news
    thinking / methods regarding Workplace Travel Plans to the borough’s business community.
    Seminars will focus on topics such as surveying and starting a travel plan, incentives, effective monitoring, as
    well as education regarding the alternative forms of transport in the borough. By providing such information to
    businesses, we hope to “empower” them so they take responsibility and a growing interest in how their
    employees, customers and visitors travel to and from site.
    Kingston Travel Plan Network
    – on going development and administration
    South West London Car Sharing Scheme
    Kingston Council is a supporter of sharethecar.org, the South West London car sharing scheme.
    It promotes car sharing as an alternative to use of a single occupancy car through the promotional material it
    produces, as well as having a section about car sharing on both its intranet and internet sites
    (www.kingston.gov.uk/goodgoing).


(Continued overleaf)
Form Number          47 (ctd)                                              Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TRAVEL AWARENESS – Good Going, Workplace Travel Plans, Car Sharing etc
Location:                       Boroughwide
Dates:                          Continuous 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:


    South West London Car Sharing Scheme (ctd)

    We provide information about sharethecar.org to all businesses in the borough who are writing a travel plan
    (either voluntarily or as part of a planning application) for them to consider as a feature of their plan. Two large
    organisations in the borough that have recently started car sharing schemes are Kingston Hospital and Surrey
    County Council. Kingston Council employees also have access to a “private” section of the sharethecar.org.
This programme of work creates the conditions in which School and Workplace Travel Plans can thrive and deliver
measurable modal shift.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06    2006/07      2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 57       90.84          94            97           338.84
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                            3                                                     3

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    60       90.84          94            97           341.84
                                                                    STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

                                                                                          SUPPORT FROM LOCAL
PARTNERS                                            3
                                                                                           BUSINESSES IN KIND
OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Local schools, employers and voluntary sector organisations.




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                      MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                      Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                      Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                      3 Pr 7
                                                                                                      2, 7, 8, 12 &
                                                                                      VI & VII                        4P.Pr4
                                                                                                      13
                                                                                                                      4H.Pr3


Modal Impact                                                                                                               Impact
                                                                                                                           (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                           Neutral)

Cycling and Walking         Will increase                                                                                  Positive
Public transport             Will increase                                                                                 Positive
Car Use                      Will decrease                                                                                 Positive
                                                                                                                           Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                     (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                           Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                              Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                  Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                            N/al

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                 Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                All E&I Target groups                                                    Positive




        :
Form Number          48                                                  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            TRAVEL AWARENESS - Travel Smart Individual travel planning
Location:                       Various areas of the Borough

Dates:                          2007/08 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



Background
Travel Smart is an innovative scheme aimed at altering individuals’ journey patterns. It identifies people who are
willing or able to reduce their private car use, and then provides them with personalised travel information and
incentives to encourage them to switch to public transport, walking or cycling or to other alternatives to driving a
car.

In 2003/03 the Council received £100k to fund a pilot scheme focused on a sample of 1,000 households in a
predetermined target area in Surbiton. The pilot was undertaken between January 2003 and April 2004.

Results of the pilot indicated that it was successful in achieving significant and sustained changes in travel
behaviour:
   a reduction in the mode share of car driver trips from 42% to 36%
   a 15% reduction in car distances travelled, resulting in a net saving among the target population of 1 million car
  kilometres per year
   growth in trips by sustainable travel modes, relative increases in walking (15%), cycling (67%) and public
  transport (12%)

Programme
The Council propose to continue this initiative on a larger scale in other areas of the Borough. Costs per
household will be lower than during the pilot since TfL have identified economies of scale. The favoured areas for
rolling out Travel Smart are those where car ownership and use is high yet there are viable public transport
options for accessing local town centres and other facilities, and the distances concerned are suited to walking
and cycling. North Kingston is one such area, Chessington is another. The Worcester Park/Old Malden area also
has potential based on the presence of two rail stations, the high frequency 213 bus service and useful cycle
routes.
                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06    2006/07       2007/08      2008/09        Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                  0         0            80           80             160
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             0         0            20           20              40

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     0         0           100          100             200
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER                                                 40         Envisaged                    Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                   MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                 Priority Area     Target Number
                                                                                                                                                   Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                 III               7               4P.Pr4


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                            Impact
                                                                                                                                                        (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                        Neutral)
Train and bus operators gain extra revenue                                                                                                              Positive
Cycling and walking increases and this helps to make these modes more credible to other potential users                                                 Positive
Car use drops, helping to ease congestion and assist buses, freight vehicles and other car users to experience more reliable journey times.             Positive
                                                                                                                                                        Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                  (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                        Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                           Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                               Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                         N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                              Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                All E&I groups                                                                                        Positive




        :
Form Number         49                                                      Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            SCHOOL TRAVEL PLANS (incorporating Safer Routes to School)
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          Continuous from 2005/06 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:

The Council is dedicated to the Government’s target to cover all schools with a Travel Plan by 2010.

As of January 2005, there were 6 schools with travel plans and another 19 engaged in the writing. Further schools
continue to express keenness to develop Plans as a result of a seminar on school travel held in Kingston in
September 2004, and because of communications sent from the Council to schools.
TfL has set the Council targets for the implementation of travel plans and these are set out in Chapter 9.
To achieve our targets, a dedicated School Travel Plan Officer will work alongside schools to ensure their Travel
Plans progress and to ensure that they are implemented. DfES and the Council has met an element of the
funding for the post during 2005/06 but additional funding is required to continue with the post, as well as to cover
the cost of any seminars, promotional material, and the setting up and maintenance of the Kingston School Travel
Plan Network website.
Because of the challenging targets set and the overall growth of this area of work the Council is looking to engage
two School Travel Plan Officers from 2006/7.
In accord with the increased scope for funding under this topic, the figures requested include:
STP development (maps, seminars, STP Network, staff cover for schools to write plans, staff cover for curriculum
map, promotional material)
STP Implementation: Highway engineering improvements, walking bus set up costs, curriculum resources,
theatre in education, school entrance works, improved lighting, cycle shelters, doctor bike sessions, personal
safety improvements – possibly CCTV- highway cycle infrastructure.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06     2006/07       2007/08       2008/09         Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                 25          419          300            300            1044
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                            18          N/K          105            110             233

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                    43          419          405            410            1277
                                                                      STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

                                                    17
PARTNERS                                                                                      DfES staffing costs

OTHER
                                                    1                                       Walking bus sponsorship

                                                   215            Envisaged                       Section 106
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners are Schools (LEA and Private), DfES
Dependencies: Engineering schemes on the Highway close to schools, notably 20 mph zones and walking/cycling improvements will influence the degree of modal shift.
Scheme design will in part depend on outcomes of road safety review and the review of travel at individual schools.
Risks: Catchment area of schools becomes more widespread over Local Implementation Plan period.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                           MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                                           Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                        1, 2, 7, 8, 12 &
                                                                                                                        III                                4G. Pr9
                                                                                                                                        13


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                    Impact
                                                                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                Neutral)

Walking and Cycling                                                                                                                                             Positive
Public Transport                                                                                                                                                Positive
Car use – reduced especially in peaks.          Intention is that car use falls from a 40% share in 2001 to a 30% share by 2011.                                Positive
                                                                                                                                                                Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                          (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                                   Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                       Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                 n/a

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                      Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Children                                                                                                      Positive




        :
Freight
5.67 The Borough does not have heavy industry or other generators of large scale,
     regular freight flows so there are few opportunities to make continuous use of
     water or rail. Carrying waste away from the Borough is a regular flow, currently
     relying on road transport. The Council will seek planning conditions requiring
     use of the Thames for delivering aggregates etc to riverside construction projects
     where appropriate. Use of rail freight depots at Tolworth and Chessington South
     will also be encouraged through the planning system where an adjoining use or an
     inter-modal option could make rail freight viable.
5.68 Most freight movement to and from businesses, shops etc in the Borough is
     smaller scale and only practical using road vehicles. For this reason the main
     emphasis is on a Freight Quality Partnership approach intended to minimise the
     adverse environmental effects of HGVs but also to assist hauliers and businesses
     who operate in a responsible way. In this respect the objectives identified by
     the London Sustainable Distribution Partnership are endorsed by the Council. A
     depot for transhipment from 38 tonne HGVs to electrically powered delivery vans
     or small lorries may be a solution where town centre development is impeded by
     servicing needs of the largest vehicles. Short operating distances and a depot with
     recharging facilities make this a practical option for electrically powered vehicles.
     Some of these road transport approaches will be pursued regionally through the
     SWELTRAC partnership and its recently established Freight Quality Partnership.
     The Council itself has a costed programme of freight proposals to address
     industrial estates as follows.




                                                                                5.27
Form Number         50                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            FREIGHT
Location:                       Chessington Industrial Estate and Kingston Town Centre

Dates:                          2006/07 – 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:




Industrial Estates
The Boroughs Industrial Estates are important commercial areas and significant places of employment. However,
the negative impacts on the surrounding residential areas, particularly nuisance caused by lorry intrusion,
speeding traffic, congestion and peaks in traffic flows when staff arrive and leave are recognised.
It is proposed to improve signage around Chessington Industrial Estate to assist in reducing the number of lorries
that take wrong or illegal turns into the adjacent residential roads, introduce modifications to the speed reducing
features in these neighbouring roads and parking restrictions if applicable where congestion does occur. Best
practise on freight signing strategy from the Brimsdown FQP and the West London FQP will be followed. A freight
map will be produced providing guidance to HGV drivers on how to access premises on the estate from different
parts of the strategic road network. It will be circulated and promoted to all employers on the Estate and placed on
the RBK website as well as being made available to TfL.

Kingston Town Centre
Kingston Town Centre has been divided into 20+ Service Delivery Areas since the construction of the Relief Road
in 1990. At the time this was heralded as an innovative way to direct strangers to the area quickly and efficiently
to their destination around a confusing road layout. This was achieved through each area within the Town Centre
being given a letter identification code, and Black and White lorry direction signs erected to guide vehicles to the
correct area.
Unfortunately, few businesses are using these in their headed paper with resultant confusion for delivery
companies. As things stands the proliferation of signs are more akin to street clutter than a worthwhile traffic
management tool. It is intended through thorough investigation to assess the true worth of the signs and what
could be done to improve them. This may result in the decision that they should they be removed to reduce street
clutter and improve the street scene.
The project would be undertaken in three parts. Initially a study will be undertaken engaging local businesses and
Kingston Town Centre Management. Dependent on these initial findings, working groups may be established to
determine how best to ensure that the signs serve their purpose and finally any changes would be implemented.

General
Ongoing monitoring of each scheme will assess performance and identify further possible improvements.
                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08     2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                0           80           50          50            180
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   0           80           50          50            180
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: SWELTRAC Freight Quality Partnership, Employers in Chessington and KTC
Dependencies and Risks:


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                                                 MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                                              Priority Area      Target Number
                                                                                                                                                                 Number (Appendix C)

Working with SWELTRAC partners in a freight quality partnership covering cross boundary/authority issues                      IV                                 4K.Pr1 and 4K.Pr2
                                                                                                                                                                 3.Pr6
Modal Impact                                                                                                                                                          Impact
                                                                                                                                                                      (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                                      Neutral)

Volume of freight vehicle traffic will not alter but drivers and businesses could experience efficiency gains.
                                                                                                                                                                      Positive

                                                                                                                                                                      Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                                                (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                                      Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:   keeping large freight vehicles out of unsuitable residential roads will improve safety                Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                                             Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                                       Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                                            Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                                                                                    Neutral




        :
Regeneration
5.69 Completion of the St Marks Hill section of the A240 North-South strategy is
     planned during 2006/07. The main works will be complete in 2005/06 provided
     current timetables are met. See Form 51.




  5.28
Form Number              51                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            REGENERATION
Location:                       A240 Ewell Road junction with St Mark’s Hill and Surbiton District Centre

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2006/07 & 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:

The proposed scheme is an essential element of Kingston’s A240 North-South strategy, from which six schemes
have already been completed. The strategy provides benefits for motorists, bus passengers, cyclists and
pedestrians, as well as some environmental improvements.

The main objectives of the scheme are:
  Making journey times more reliable for buses and other traffic by improving the capacity at a bottleneck that
  causes congestion in busy periods
  Improving the pedestrian crossing facility
  Improving facilities for cyclists with provision of special junction treatment by introducing feeder lanes and
  advanced stop lines for cyclists on all four arms of the junction
  Improve safety as this junction has a poor accident record (over the past five years there have been 34
  accidents, including 7 serious. Over the previous five years up to 2002 there were 45 accidents, including 7
  serious).
These will be achieved through the following:-
   provision of two-lane approaches/exits at the junction (widening of all arms of the junction where St Mark’s Hill
  meets the A240) and controlling right-turn movements.
   renewal of the traffic signal junction and implementation of pedestrian phases (by adding fully signalled
  pedestrian crossings on three arms of the junction and, for the fourth arm, providing an additional crossing 70m
  from the junction.
  provision of Advanced Stop Lines (ASL) for cyclists on all junction arms with appropriate feeder lanes.
  complimentary landscaping i.e. planting areas along Surbiton Hill Road, replanting of trees in Hollyfield School
  and replanting areas along the railway.

The scheme affords an opportunity to widen Ewell Road Bridge (over railway) removing a constriction in this vital
route to Kingston. It is hoped that when completed the scheme will contribute to a reduction in traffic switching
onto residential roads due to congestion enabling implementation of effective traffic calming measures on these
roads.

A proposal for Surbiton District Centre is being made in 2008/09 to undertake substantial works in Victoria Road
and the surrounding streets. To realise these improvements complementary work is also proposed under 20 mph,
Walking Cycling and Accessibility.


                                     FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06      2006/07      2007/08      2008/09      Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                1350          80           0           150          1580
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             480          0           0            0            480

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                   1830          80           0           150          2060
                                                                      STATUS
                                                   AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                               (Requested,                  COMMENTS
                                                     (£k)
                                                                     Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES                                    480            Approved
PARTNERS (please specify)

OTHER (please specify)
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:



Key Delivery Partners: Network Rail
Dependencies and Risks: Timing of Network Rail possessions and completion during the slot agreed.




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                    MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                    Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                    Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                    4F.Pr6, 4F.Pr8
                                                                                                    I, II, & III    1, 4, 6 & 12
                                                                                                                                    4G.Po2


Modal Impact                                                                                                                             Impact
                                                                                                                                         (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                         Neutral)
Buses, Cyclists and Pedestrians                                                                                                          Positive
Cars                                                                                                                                     Neutral
                                                                                                                                         Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                   (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                         Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                            Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                          Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                               Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Older People, Children and Disabled                                                    Positive




        :
Environment
5.70 Several MTS proposals have air quality implications including 3Pr.2, 3.Pr.7, 4F.Pr21,
     4G.Pr1 and 4K Pr4. The Boroughs strategy to cut traffic levels is the prime means
     of improving air quality and the Environmental Report provides further detail on
     this and on the Air Quality Action Plan. Detailed comments were sent to the
     Association of London Government (ALG) during consultation on a London LEZ
     and the Council is ready to play its part in enforcing the scheme. Use of coaches
     and powered two wheelers is encouraged, as an alternative to car use, through
     preferential parking conditions. In line with the procurement strategy alternative
     fuels are used in most of the Council’s vehicles, mainly LPG or an LPG/petrol
     option as in vans and cars. Minibuses currently use Euro III diesel. There are no
     Council vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.
5.71 As tenders are invited for contracted out services like rubbish collection the
     specification requires quotes using alternative fuelled vehicles. Particulate traps
     should be utilised on vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes. The objective through
     terms of contracts is that these vehicles must meet Euro II plus a reduced
     pollution certificate if they are to be employed in RBK after Dec 2007 and Euro
     IV (with anything not meeting that standard needing a particulate trap and NOx
     abatement equipment) if they are to be employed in RBK after the start of 2010.
5.72 The Council monitors alternative fuel outlets in the Borough and will use any
     influence it can exert to encourage more outlets as one aspect of its Air Quality
     Action Plan. However planning applications for construction or modification of
     petrol stations are rare and central Government initiatives are needed to make
     alternative fuel provision more attractive to fuel retailers. The Council propose
     to increase the number of charging points for electric vehicles such as within
     Council car parks and will consider approaching the Energy Saving Trust for grants
     towards costs.
5.73 The Council recognises the importance of kerbside vegetation. Trees in particular
     are important for reducing CO2 levels and they also allow settling of airborne
     particulates. The Council will therefore encourage verge side planting of suitable
     species to improve the environment in this way, in a manner sensitive to the needs
     of local wildlife.
5.74 Noise Proposal 3.Pr4. Expenditure on quiet road surfacing and noise barriers
     is contained within the highway maintenance proposals. A map showing road
     traffic noise levels on all significant Borough roads is accessible at http://www.
     noisemapping.org/Default.asp
5.75 A form covering proposals on air quality follows.

                                                                                 5.29
Form Number         52                                                    Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            ENVIRONMENT - Air Quality Measures
Location:                       Boroughwide

Dates:                          2006/07 to 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:




Costs associated with enforcing the London LEZ scheme starting in 2007/08.
Expenditure to increase the number of charging points for electric vehicles within Council car parks.
Costs associated with contracted out services requiring alternative fuelled vehicles (where this adds a premium to
a contract relative to conventional vehicles).
Feasibility costs associated with:
•   a depot for transhipment from 38 tonne HGVs to electrically powered delivery vans or small lorries
•   use of small scale wind power to generate electricity on Council buildings and on street lights




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06   2006/07       2007/08        2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   0        0            50             70             120
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                       20           20             20              60

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                      0        20           70             90             180
                                                                    STATUS
                                                     AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                     COMMENTS
                                                       (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                      None
                                                                                          Addition to staff costs and
BOROUGH RESOURCES                                      60
                                                                                              revenue budgets
PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners: Contractors, LEZ administrators at TfL
Dependencies: LEZ introduced as planned at start of 2008.
                   Government policies on taxation of alternative fuels, Powershift programme etc.


Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                                              MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                                              Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                                              Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                                              3. Pr2
                                                                                                              VI              12 & 13


Modal Impact                                                                                                                                       Impact
                                                                                                                                                   (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                                   Neutral)

Levels of walking and cycling could rise slightly if people are reassured that air quality is improving                                            Positive


                                                                                                                                                   Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                                   Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                                                      N/A

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                                          Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                                    N/A

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                                         Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Elderly and groups with breathing related health problems                                        Positive




        :
Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ`s)
5.76 Large parts of Kingston, Surbiton and Norbiton are now covered by CPZs.
     Further zones in Surbiton will be implemented in 2005/06. No specific schemes
     are planned beyond that year but if any are forthcoming in response to resident’s
     views they will be funded from Borough resources. Improved powered two
     wheeler parking is proposed in Kingston CPZs. A form covering all CPZ
     proposals follows.




  5.30
Form Number          53                                                   Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES
Location:                       Kingston Town Centre and Borough District Centres

Dates:                          2005/06 - 2007/08

Description of Main Elements:




Secure motorcycle parking
The recent spread of Controlled Parking Zone’s (CPZ’s) has led to mode switching from car to PTW and put
pressure on the existing limited number of solo motorcycle bays in and around Kingston and Surbiton town
centres. (Expenditure identifies in 2005/06 relates to new CPZs in the Surbiton area.) The Council is keen to
encourage the use of powered two wheelers (PTW’s) as a more sustainable alternative to the car. This has been
demonstrated by allowing free time limited parking for PTW’s in permit and shared-use bays within CPZ’s and
permitting PTW’s in some bus lanes.
However, motorcycles due to their relatively high value and mobility are an easy target for thieves and fear of theft
still remains a major disincentive for people to swap from cars to mopeds or motorcycles.

To lessen concerns it is proposed to provide secure “hitching rails” at six of the seven solo motorcycle bays in the
Town Centre.
The location and capacities of existing bays are detailed in table 7.9 and shown on the annex 4 map in chapter 7.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                               2005/06     2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   0        20           20           0             40
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                             350                                              350

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                     350       20           20           0            390
                                                                    STATUS
                                                    AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                      (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES                                    350                                     Budget 05/06
PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Key Delivery Partners:
Dependencies: None
Risks: minor, related to consultation outcomes

Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                       MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                       Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                       Number (Appendix C)

                                                                                                                       4G. PO5
                                                                                       IV              7
                                                                                                                       4G. Pr17


Modal Impact                                                                                                                Impact
                                                                                                                            (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                            Neutral)

Buses                                                                                                                       Positive
Motorcyclists                                                                                                               Positive
Cars (gains for residents offset by longer walk times for commuter/university users)                                        Neutral
Cyclists and pedestrians benefit from a more ordered and safer street                                                       Positive
                                                                                                                            Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                      (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                            Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                               Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                   Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                             Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Disabled                                                                  Positive




        :
Local Area Accessibility
5.77 In line with the Accessibility Action Plan in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy the
     Council will concentrate its efforts on bus stop accessibility and community
     transport. It is helped in this task by local community and voluntary organisations,
     notably Age Concern and Kingston Centre for Independent Living which has
     been providing organisational support for the Kingston Mobility Forum. The
     forum has held meetings since April 2004 on bus services, on train services and
     on door to door services with representatives from the Council, TfL, Taxicard,
     Dial a Ride and RaKAT. The Forum has also provided information on issues that
     most concern their memberships such as use of driver only buses, badge abuse in
     accessible bays, loss of accessible parking spaces and cars blocking dropped kerbs.
     Also the hazards of “A” boards, poor accessibility both inside Kingston station and
     for vehicles dropping-off disabled passengers, difficulty with Capital Call - a good
     scheme but with the major drawback that users talk to a control centre based in
     Edinburgh.
5.78 The Council’s four Neighbourhoods also provide information about poorly served
     areas; for instance South of the Borough neighbourhood have drawn attention to
     the fact that some Hook residents living in the centre of the Crofts Estate to the
     south of the A3 do not have a bus stop within 400 metres.
5.79 The Council has steadily increased the number of bus services that run from or
     past Kingston Hospital. It recently agreed an extension of the K4 bus service
     to the Hospital, effective from March 2005. It is making a payment of £217,054
     to London Buses from its section 106 Transport Fund towards the costs of the
     revised service to July 2006.
5.80 A single programme of work is described to improve the quality and accessibility
     of several of the Borough’s 29 local parades and surrounding neighbourhoods.
     Those chosen are in areas which suffer relative deprivation, have casualty clusters
     and have parades that need a boost to their economic vitality if the small shops
     there are to remain viable. The parades play a vital role in providing local services
     and facilities. Elderly and disadvantaged groups often rely more on their local
     shopping parade than somewhat distant town centres. Schemes are described
     in generic terms with the timing of work at any particular parade dependent on
     urgency of need and on opportunities to tie in with associated work. This could
     be development related, linked to station access or bus priority measures or
     linked in with footway maintenance/renewal. Form number 54 provides details.




                                                                                5.31
Form Number            54                                                 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            LOCAL AREA ACCESSIBILITY – Generic for individual schemes under £100k
Location:                       See below
Dates:                          20005/06 – 2006/07

Description of Main Elements:




Areas identified for phased implementation in 2006/07, including a number of local shopping parades are:-
Chessington Parade, Coombe Road, Crescent Road, Hook Parade/Elm Road, Moor Lane/Gilders Road,
Richmond Road, South Lane and Tolworth Broadway (side road entry treatments).
The schemes pursued will aim to make improvements to accessibility:-
•   to mitigate the detrimental effects of traffic through the provision of safe and accessible crossing points for
    pedestrians
•   revise parking arrangements including provision of designated disabled bays
•   reconstruct footways
•   to address low levels of street lighting to improve personal safety and security.

Schemes identified for treatment in subsequent years will result from work carried out by the Borough Walking
Audit team and will require extensive consultation with local communities affected. Among the main selection
criteria are those areas which suffer relative deprivation, have vulnerable road user casualty clusters and have
parades that need a boost to their economic vitality if the small shops there are to remain viable.
In addition to the local shopping parades there is a particular need to address accessibility problems in Surbiton
District Centre, namely the main shopping street Victoria Road. Consequently a bid has been made for funding in
2008/09 (this forms part of a substantial improvement scheme for which complementary proposals appear under
20 mph, Walking, Cycling and Regeneration)




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                             2005/06       2006/07      2007/08       2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                              40           417            0            80            537
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                                                                                  0

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                 40           417            0            80            537
                                                                    STATUS
                                                 AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                   COMMENTS
                                                   (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP

BOROUGH RESOURCES

PARTNERS

OTHER
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

Public consultations




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                                               MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                                               Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                                               Number (Appendix C)

Supports Mayors Accessibility Action Plan                                                                                      4I. Pr2
                                                                                               V, VI, VIII     10, 12
                                                                                                                               4I. Pr8


Modal Impact                                                                                                                        Impact
                                                                                                                                    (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                                                    Neutral)

Pedestrians – improved accessibility on foot to local facilities will encourage walking                                             Positive
Cars – should reduce short car trips                                                                                                Positive


                                                                                                                                    Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                                              (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                                                    Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: street lighting = improved sec                                        Positive

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                                           Positive

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                                                     Positive

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                                          Positive

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                Disabled, Women, older people                                                     Positive




        :
Community Transport
5.81 The Community Transport Association (CTA) represents voluntary transport
     operators. The CTA has an advice service centre, which offers information
     and support on all aspects of non-profit transport operations. Through the
     Community Plan transport group the voluntary sector and Primary Care Trust
     (PCT) have helped the Council identify community transport priorities and
     appreciate the London Health Commission’s strategy vis a vis transport. The
     Council employs a Flexible Transport Officer and worked closely with KCIL
     to produce a comprehensive information leaflet about accessible community
     transport options and provision in the Borough. This can be viewed on the RBK
     website under ‘general publications’ at -
     http://www.kingston.gov.uk/social_care/communitycareservices/our_publications.
     htm
5.82 The Council supports a Shopmobility scheme in Kingston and, in line with the
     Community Plan, it wants to examine extending the scheme and increased
     promotion. The Council has no direct role in providing personal electric vehicles
     (PEVs) to residents but liaises with the wheelchair service at Queen Mary’s,
     Roehampton and appreciates the importance PEVs have in terms of accessibility.
     The Council is publicizing to KCIL the fact that Camden are managing a TfL
     demonstration project called ScootAbility which facilitates the short-term loan
     of PEVs to older residents by way of a membership based delivery service. The
     applicability to RBK will be investigated.
5.83 Door to door services available in the Borough for disabled people consist of:
      • Dial-a Ride,
      • Community Services Directorate’s free Monday - Friday 10.30 a.m. to 3.00
        p.m. ‘Flexible Transport’ service for its clients
      • Taxicard and Capital Call (the latter allocates up to £200 a year to spend on
        minicabs where taxis are in short supply)
      • Voluntary Care Schemes
      • Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport (RAKAT)
      • Hospital transport authorized by hospital or family doctors.
5.84 Capital Call is operated by the Transport Co-ordination Centre using a grant
     from TfL. All companies employed will have been subject to Criminal Record
     Bureau checks on drivers. It is not suited to all disabled residents as minicabs




   5.32
      are rarely wheelchair accessible unless the user can fold up a chair during the
      journey. 6 However it is useful to other disabled residents and the Council would
      like to integrate it with the ability to book community transport vehicles so that
      all disabled residents have an opportunity to book door to transport as individuals
      or in groups. The Council recently obtained for voluntary sector partners a BSP
      funding award for purchase of community transport vehicles in 2005/06. It wishes
      to continue such support during the LIP period and a proposal follows.




6
  Different accessibility considerations apply as between taxis and PHVs. Taxis can be hired on
the spot - in the street or at a rank - by the customer dealing directly with a driver; but PHVs
can only be booked through an operator. It is important that a disabled person should be able
to hire a taxi on the spot with the minimum delay or inconvenience, and having accessible taxis
available makes that possible.

                                                                                          5.33
Form Number         55                                           Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            Enhanced Community Transport
Location:                       Richmond and Kingston Boroughs

Dates:                          2005/06 to 2008/09

Description of Main Elements:



This programme is unusual in that the Council, in liaison with Richmond Council, acts on behalf of the voluntary
sector in drawing up a bid for funding which is then included in a sub-regional SWELTRAC bid. Any funds
awarded by TfL are administered by SWELTRAC who deal directly with the voluntary sector on the finances.
The programme will improve the capacity of voluntary sector organisations and groups in the two Boroughs to
meet demand for community transport. The ability to do this is currently hampered by lack of capital funding for
vehicle replacement and for communications systems that could improve co-ordination and efficiency.
Kingston Voluntary Action (KVA), the umbrella group for voluntary bodies in the Borough, have the ambition to
develop Enterprise schemes which build on the four successful Voluntary Care schemes operating in RBK and
eight in Richmond Borough. They also aim to pull together organisations and transport resources and so reduce
duplication and waste. Capital is required to replace minibuses of over 8 years, add accessible people carriers to
the fleet and buy software and hardware to control and co-ordinate bookings and vehicle use.
KVA are building on the approach taken in the Commission for Accessible Transport’s publication ‘Door-to-door
Transport for Disabled Londoners’ 1999 to build comprehensive provision through neighbourhood based
integrated demand centres.
The vehicle fleet is owned by Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport (RAKAT) which also houses the Dial-
A-Ride sub-base for Richmond and Kingston and the Developing Access/ Living Learning Centres.
A Development Worker is employed on secondment from KVA and the scheme provides training for drivers and
passenger assistance. RAKAT’s community transport role is particularly aimed at groups for people such as the
elderly who have mobility problems, but it also enables other local voluntary groups and clubs to hire accessible
minibuses, ranging from the University sports teams and Kingston College to local Scout and Guide groups. Over
200 voluntary groups are registered with RAKAT with an additional 80 groups that have let the membership lapse
but which might renew when again a need for transport resources occur. These groups have a total membership
of 24,276 individuals.
Richmond and Kingston Accessible Transport (RAKAT) is a local non-profit making Community Transport Scheme
funded by Richmond and Kingston Councils, the PCT, local Trusts and Charities. It has 15 vehicles on the road,
10 of which are fully accessible. By April 2005 four of RAKAT’s 15 minibus fleet will be over 8 years old. At this
age they become expensive to operate as maintenance and repair costs consume too much of the running costs
budget and draw money away from activity needed to maximise co-ordination between voluntary organisations.
RAKAT is unable to build a sufficient depreciation fund to replace vehicles. Other operating costs are more
urgent and often displace depreciation contributions. Other voluntary organisations experience similar problems.
KVA also seeks software to take Voluntary Care schemes on from a situation where a rota of volunteers have to
man a single phone line to co-ordinate requests and volunteers. This arrangement will not be adequate for the
increased workload and co-ordination task expected in future
While the bid relates to capital expenditure, the broader scheme is also concerned with revenue expenditure
because in the field of community transport this is always a pressing issue. Unless the right balance of assured
capital and revenue funding is in place, the full potential of a scheme will not be realised.
The fundamental objective in enhancing community transport is to support TfL’s Equality and Inclusion
commitment to “a city for people, an accessible city and a fair city.”

(Continued overleaf)
Form Number         55 (ctd)                                      Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

                                    LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal:            Enhanced Community Transport
Location:                       Richmond and Kingston Boroughs
Dates:                          2005/06 to 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:



Costs at 2005 prices:

Purchase of up to two accessible minibuses in 2006/07 at a cost of £44k each, offset by an estimated £4,000
raised from sale of old vehicles. All replacements should be accessible. Net cost £84k. Purchase of one
accessible minibus in 2008/09 at a cost of £44k, offset by an estimated £2,000 raised from sale of old vehicle. Net
cost £42k
Purchase of two accessible people carriers in 2007/08 and two in 2009/10 at a cost of £22k each, to cover the two
Boroughs.
Purchase of help line, scheduling and route planning software and hardware over the three years 2006/07 to
2008/09 at an estimated cost of £30k.
Beyond the three year timeframe of this PSP bid RAKAT expect growth in their level of activity to require the
purchase of two more accessible people carriers in 2009/10.




                                    FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K)                                2005/06    2006/07      2007/08     2008/09       Total (£K)

FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP                                   0        0            0            0              0
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES
(Details To Be Provided Below)                              65       99           54          47            265

TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED                                      65       99           54          47            265
                                                                    STATUS
                                                     AMOUNT
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES                                             (Requested,                 COMMENTS
                                                       (£k)
                                                                   Approved)
TFL OUTSIDE BSP                                       170         Requested        SWELTRAC PSP Bid
                                                       50         Received         SWELTRAC 2005/06 award
BOROUGH RESOURCES

                                                                                   Fundraising by RAKAT to
PARTNERS                                               45                          supplement capital funds for
                                                                                   vehicle purchase
OTHER




         :
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:

RBK Housing, Housing Associations, Residents Associations, Employers,




Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:

                                                                                                        MTS Proposal / Policy
                                                                        Priority Area   Target Number
                                                                                                        Number (Appendix C)

                                                                        V               10              4O.Pr5 & 6


Modal Impact                                                                                                 Impact
                                                                                                             (Positive, Negative,
(Please list the Modes affected)                                                                             Neutral)




                                                                                                             Impact
Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance)                                                       (Positive, Negative,
                                                                                                             Neutral, N/Al)

Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:                                                Neutral

Encouraging sustainable means for travel:                                                                    Neutral

Balanced road space allocation:                                                                              Neutral

Requirements for sustainable developments:                                                                   Neutral

Equality & Inclusion Target Group:                                                                           Positive




        :
5.85 Table 5.4 has been designed to provide a summary of the Borough’s LIP
     proposals cross-referenced against the priority areas for implementation, policies,
     proposals and targets in the Mayors Transport Strategy (MTS). Ideally it should be
     read in conjunction with the MTS.




  5.34
Table 5.4    Proposal Summary Sheet

Categories           Proposals, Policies and Targets            Reference
as per matrix                                                   Numbers
(Appendix C)       Priority   Proposal    Policy       Target     of
                   Area                                         Form 1
Strategies                                3.Po5                 39 - 41
                                          3.Po6
                                          3.Po7
                                          3.Po8
                                          3.Po9
                     V          3.Pr1                  10, 11
                     VI         3.Pr2                  7, 12    52
                     VI         3Pr4                   7, 12
                     VI         3.Pr5                  7, 12
                     VI         3.Pr6                  7, 12
                                3.Pr7                           27, 48

Underground                     4C.Pr12

DLR & Tramlink                  4D.Pr3                 10, 11
                                4D.Pr4
                                4D.Pr5
                     V          4D.Pr6                 10, 11
                                4D.Pr7

Rail                            4E.Pr7
                                4E.Pr8
                     V          4E.Pr9                 10, 11
                                4E.Pr10
                     V          4E.Pr13                10, 11   46
                                4E.Pr14
                                          4E.Po3

Bus                  II         4F.Pr2                 3, 4     29 - 38
                     II         4F.Pr3                 3, 4
                     II         4F.Pr6                 3, 4     29 - 38, 41 & 51
                     II         4F.Pr7                 3, 4
                     III        4F.Pr8                 3, 4     30, 41 & 51
                     V          4F.Pr11                10, 11   28
                     IV         4F.Pr21                7, 9



                                                                     5.35
Categories        Proposals, Policies and Targets                Reference
as per matrix                                                    Numbers
(Appendix C)    Priority   Proposal    Policy       Target         of
                Area                                             Form 1
Streets           IV         4G.Pr1                 7, 9
                  III                  4G.Po2                    39 - 41, 44 & 51
                             4G.Pr2
                             4G.Pr3
                  II         4G.Pr4                 3, 4         13
                  I          4G.Pr7                 1, 2         12
                  I          4G.Pr9                 1, 2         5 - 11, 41 & 49
                  VI         4G.Pr10                7, 12        41
                  VI         4G.Pr11                7, 12        41
                  III        4G.Pr12                5, 6, 7, 8
                  III        4G.Pr14                5, 6, 7, 8
                                       4G.Po5                    53
                  IV         4G.Pr15                7, 9         39 & 41
                                       4G.Po6
                  IV         4G.Pr16                7, 9
                  IV         4G.Pr17                7, 9         39, 41 & 53
                  III        4G.Pr18                5, 6, 7, 8   59
                  III        4G.Pr19                5, 6, 7, 8
                  III        4G.Pr20                5, 6, 7, 8
                             4G.Pr22
                             4G.Pr23
                  III        4G.Pr24                5, 6, 7, 8
                  VIII       4G.Pr25                14           1-4
                  VIII       4G.Pr26                14           1-4

Car                          4H.Pr1
                  IV         4H.Pr2                 7, 9
                  III        4H.Pr3                 5, 6, 7, 8

Walking           VI         4I.Pr2                 7, 12        14 - 20, 39-45
                                                                 & 54
                  VI         4I.Pr3                 7, 12
                  VI         4I.Pr4                 7, 12
                  VI         4I.Pr6                 7, 12
                  VI         4I.Pr7                 7, 12        15 & 17
                  VI         4I.Pr8                 7, 12        14 - 17, 19 - 20,
                                                                 39-45 & 54



  5.36
Categories        Proposals, Policies and Targets                Reference
as per matrix                                                    Numbers
(Appendix C)    Priority   Proposal    Policy       Target         of
                Area                                             Form 1
Cycling                                4J.Po1
                  VII        4J.Pr1                 13           25
                  VII        4J.Pr3                 13           21-23 & 27
                  VII        4J.Pr4                 13           21 & 41
                  VII        4J.Pr5                 13
                  VII        4J.Pr6                 13
                  VII        4J.Pr7                 13           24 & 41
                  VII        4J.Pr8                 13           26

Freight                      3.Pr6                               50
                             4K.Pr1                              50
                             4K.Pr2                              50
                  III        4K.Pr3                 5, 6, 7, 8
                             4K.Pr4                 7, 12
                             4K.Pr5

International                          4L.Po6
Issues

Water                        4M.Pr2
                                       4M.Po2

Taxi                                   4N.Po2
                             4N.Pr1
                  V          4N.Pr5                 10, 11

Accessible                             4O.Po1       28
Transport         V          4O.Pr1                 10, 11
                                       4O.Po2
                  V          4O.Pr3                 10, 11
                  V          4O.Pr4                 10, 11
                  V          4O.Pr5                 10, 11       55
                  V          4O.Pr6                 10,   11     55
                  V          4O.Pr9                 10,   11
                  V          4O.Pr12                10,   11
                  V          4O.Pr13                10,   11     PEP
                  V          4O.Pr14                10,   11     PEP




                                                                       5.37
Categories         Proposals, Policies and Targets                Reference
as per matrix                                                     Numbers
(Appendix C)     Priority   Proposal    Policy       Target         of
                 Area                                             Form 1
Integration                             4P.Po2                    14
                              4P.Pr3
                   III        4P.Pr4                 5, 6, 7, 8   47 & 48
                   V          4P.Pr5                 10, 11

Major Projects                4Q.Po1
                   4Q.Pr7




  5.38

								
To top