MQT transport answers Feb 17

USA Embassy and the congestion charge

Question No: 2017/0222

Andrew Dismore

The USA embassy has consistently refused to pay its congestion charge bill. What is the total now due; and as there is a new President in the USA will you take the opportunity to raise this matter with him, and send him the bill?

Written response from the Mayor

Information about outstanding debt owed by Embassies and Diplomatic Missions for non-payment of the Congestion Charge is regularly published by Transport for London at the following link: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/cclez-online-factsheet-embassy-debt.pdf

 

The next report is due to be published by the end of this month and will show all debts outstanding until 31 December 2016. USA Embassy debt as at 31 December 2016 is £11,544,455.

 

 

Air Pollution impact of Two-way proposal – Baker Street

Question No: 2017/0558

Andrew Dismore

Has an air quality assessment of the proposed two-way for Baker Street & Gloucester Place been undertaken by TfL or Westminster City Council in the light of it running through one of London’s biggest hot spots for air pollution. If so, with what results? And if not, why not?

Written response from the Mayor

An independent assessment of the air quality impacts of the Baker Street two-way project was carried out in February 2016.

 

The report concluded that the scheme will have a significant beneficial air quality impact and is available from the Baker Street Two Way Project website at:  http://www.bakerstreettwoway.co.uk/pdfs/Baker-Street-Air-Quality-Assessment.pdf.

 

Tube Noise Complaints in London

Question No: 2017/0559

Andrew Dismore

Can you please give the numbers of tube noise complaints TfL have received for the past 5 years – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016 – and their location on the tube map?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Buses on Oxford Street

Question No: 2017/0560

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2016/4844:

“If the Elizabeth Line, when open, is being used as an excuse to cut bus routes that use Oxford St, will bus passengers be able to travel on the Elizabeth Line for free for the length of Oxford St, to pick up another bus at the other end of Oxford Street?”

Your response being:

“The opening of the Elizabeth line will be the most significant transformation to transport in central London for a generation and we predict there will be a reduction in bus use along Oxford Street when it comes into operation in two years’ time. It is entirely appropriate for wider transport networks to be re-examined as part of this huge project.

We plan to consult on a scheme to transform Oxford Street next year.”

By how many and what percentage do you predict that bus use along Oxford St will reduce as a result of the Elizabeth Line; will you now answer the original substantive question,

namely ‘will bus passengers be able to travel on the Elizabeth Line for free for the length of Oxford St, to pick up another bus at the other end of Oxford Street?'; and in due course when you have cut Oxford St buses, will you provide a ‘mobility shuttle’ for disabled people?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

PCN mitigation

Question No: 2017/0561

Andrew Dismore

In a recent case involving one of my constituents, it transpires that local authorities, who do not accept PCN appeal representations solely based on mitigating factors, are not making clear to those appealing in their rejection letters that the London Tribunal does not accept mitigating factors as a  ground to cancel  a PCN. Residents are thus erroneously led to make a further appeal to the Tribunal when they have zero chance of success, and so end up having to pay the full penalty fare instead of the discounted early pay rate. Will you undertake to write to all Councils in London to advise them that they should make clear in their appeal rejection letters that appeals solely based on mitigating factors are not accepted by London Tribunals as a ground for cancelling a PCN, which will save Londoners money?

Written response from the Mayor

All London enforcing authorities, including TfL, have a duty to inform customers of their statutory rights in relation to the process for appealing a PCN. The decision to exercise those rights remains entirely with the PCN recipient. The information contained in the Notice of Rejection letters from enforcing authorities is a matter for the individual boroughs, authorities and London Councils.

In February, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) published a report on its investigation into ensuring good practice in the management of parking and traffic penalties. One of the report’s findings was that Councils should do more to inform motorists of their rights when issuing parking and traffic penalties, including providing clear and transparent information to improve trust between motorists and authorities and to save motorists from paying unnecessary charges. I support the LGO’s findings and, as the Joint Committee for London with respect to parking and traffic enforcement, I urge London Councils to note these findings.

London enforcing authorities must also sign up to London Councils’ Code of Practice as a condition of enforcement.

 

Colindale tube station

Question No: 2017/0562

Andrew Dismore

It has long been established that this station is in need of an upgrade especially due to the rapidly rising population served by the station. What is the present position with the upgrade; what form will the upgrade take; how will it be financed; what is the timetable for this; and when is it expected to be completed?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL is currently talking to the London Borough of Barnet about the scope of plans to upgrade Colindale station. TfL expects to share these proposals more widely by summer 2017.

The current proposal is to build a new station building with a larger entrance hall on the existing station car park and to install a lift to provide step-free access to platform level.

The project would be jointly financed by Barnet, TfL’s step-free access fund and a significant Section 106 contribution from Redrow, the developer of the former Metropolitan Police Service training college.

Once a design is agreed, TfL intends to progress the scheme using its own planning powers, with construction planned to start in spring 2019 and with a view to opening the new station entrance and step-free access in summer 2020.

 

Pedestrian crossing in Wood Street High Barnet

Question No: 2017/0563

Andrew Dismore

What public consultation did TfL undertake with High Barnet local residents, pensioner organisations, and with any users of the crossing, particularly the parents of the numerous small children who use the playground which is just inside the Old Court House Recreation Ground, about the changes to the crossing?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

TFL‘s Archway gyratory scheme

Question No: 2017/0564

Andrew Dismore

Will you conduct an urgent review of this scheme which is not helping cyclists, pedestrians or bus users and is creating significant traffic congestion?

Cyclists ask “what is the point?” of the very wide cycle lanes around the gyratory which they don’t use in any number on the Highgate Hill and Archway road lanes. Serious tailbacks occur in St. John’s Way as one can no longer turn right from here into Highgate Road.  Bus users must descend into the cycle lane (heading north) at the first stop on the Archway Road. This is a death trap and deters bus users. In the interim will you ask TFL to allow a right turn into Highgate Road from St. John’s Way?

Written response from the Mayor

The changes at Archway are nearing completion and have already transformed the gyratory from one-way to two-way traffic. When completed later this year, there will be a new public space in the heart of the town, creating a more pleasant and accessible environment for those that visit, work and live in the area.

The significantly improved pedestrian and cycling facilities address many issues at what was previously an intimidating place for vulnerable road users.

TfL wants bus users and cyclists to be safe, and feel safe, when using bus stop bypasses including the one on Archway Road. TfL is working closely with stakeholder groups to further develop bus stop bypass design, including trialling the use of zebra crossings.

The working group for the trial includes a range of user groups such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Guide Dogs Association, Age UK, and the London Cycling Campaign. In the meantime, the bus stop bypasses associated with the Archway scheme have passed thorough design and road safety checks, and TfL will carefully monitor their operation.

During the design of the Archway scheme, TfL concluded that allowing a right turn from St John’s Way into Archway Road is not possible given the available road space, road safety concerns and negative impacts on all junction users. Allowing the turn would substantially increase journey times for bus passengers and other traffic on St John’s Way and Holloway Road.

The new layout at Archway will only be fully operational once the new public space is completed later this year. TfL has committed to monitoring the Archway scheme after it is completed to assess the benefits and impacts, and any necessary changes needed will be identified and agreed with the London Borough of Islington

 

 

TfL permits to erect scaffolding on the highway and pavement on red routes

Question No: 2017/0565

Andrew Dismore

What steps do TfL take to ensure that when granting or continuing a permit for scaffolding on a red route, such as at 154 to 160 Camden High Street, that the scaffolding is needed; that the work for which it is required is being done expeditiously; and what consideration is given to the impact on neighbouring homes and business which may be affected by the scaffolding?

Written response from the Mayor

I understand that the works at 154 to 160 Camden High Street have now progressed to a stage which has allowed the scaffold to be removed.

TfL’s standard scaffolding licence conditions can be viewed on its website at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/highway-licences. Scaffold licences are time-limited to a maximum of 10 weeks, after which the need for the scaffold is regularly reviewed and the licence extended or refused as appropriate.  Standard conditions require all licensed activities to be undertaken promptly and efficiently and all equipment or materials to be cleared from the highway at the earliest practicable opportunity.

When considering the granting of a scaffold licence, TfL takes account of the safety of highway users, the practicality of undertaking the works by alternative means and other site-specific factors.

 

Victoria Line Tube Noise, Chalton St NW1

Question No: 2017/0566

Andrew Dismore

Residents have complained for over six months, about noise levels exceeding 52dB (against a recommended limit of 35dB) from the Victoria Line in this area. Will you ensure TfL produces a clear noise mitigation plan to bring back tube noise at an acceptable level; schedule for the noise reduction works; and clear and measurable noise targets?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL is aware of, and has investigated, complaints from Chalton Street residents and plans to smooth the Victoria line rails in both directions using a grinding train on 19 and 22 March. TfL is confident that noise levels will significantly reduce as a result.

After the work has been completed, TfL’s noise experts will contact all affected residents to arrange for follow-up measurements to be taken. TfL will share those results and will continue to work with the residents to ensure that their noise concerns are addressed.

CS11

Question No: 2017/0567

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2016/4391:

‘TfL have had no stakeholder meetings in Camden Town concerning CS11 even though the proposals have an impact there as well as in Swiss Cottage, as there is an  issue about diversionary traffic heading onto residential streets to the east of Regents Park when Albany Street and Prince Albert Road become the main alternative route to the outer circle for traffic in peak hours (because of the shutting of gates into the park for CS11). These two roads are also affected by HS2 major utility works and are the primary HGV routes for their lorry holding area in the zoo car park, which will then journey to the main site compound and work sites on Hampstead Road, bringing under present plans one HGV every three minutes for ten hours a day on Albany Street for several years.  Will you now arrange for a stakeholder consultation meeting in Camden Town over CS11 as soon as possible?’

Your response being:

‘TfL’s public consultation on the CS11 proposals included sending out leaflets, emails and notices to stakeholders, visiting businesses and organisations and five public drop-in sessions to give people the opportunity to ask questions about the scheme. Six thousand responses were received, which compares favourably with similar schemes. TfL has also held a number of meetings with local stakeholders to discuss the consultation proposals, including campaign groups from Westminster and Camden, as well as transport and road user groups, representatives from the freight industry, London TravelWatch, cycling campaign groups, pedestrian campaign groups, residents’ associations, MPs, local councillors and Assembly Members.

I have asked TfL officers to liaise with you and Camden Town councillors to provide a briefing on progress with this important scheme.’

How many each of leaflets, emails, and notices to stakeholders were sent to residents in Camden Town  a) in Albany Street and Prince Albert Road  b) their ward councillors and c) generally?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL sent notification emails to all Camden Town and Primrose Hill Ward councillors when the Cycle Superhighway 11 consultation was launched. Some 1,563 consultation leaflets were delivered to residents and businesses in Albany Street and Prince Albert Road, while 2,695 leaflets were delivered to properties on roads in the Camden Town and Primrose Hill Ward.

 

TfL emailed 150,000 people who live locally or are known to travel through the area. In addition, 600 businesses and organisations near the scheme were sent emails, supplementing contacts from TfL’s own database with information provided by the London Borough of Camden and the City of Westminster.

 

Cycling on the pavement

Question No: 2017/0568

Andrew Dismore

The press have reported that cyclists riding on the pavement will not face enforcement action. This activity can be dangerous for pedestrians for whom the pavement is intended. Is this in fact Met policy; if so do you agree with it, and if so why; and if not, what do you propose to do about it?

Now cyclists are told: You won’t be fined for riding on pavements

Daily Mail (Main), 23/01/2017, p.25, Chris Greenwood

Police in Camden are allowing cyclists to ride on pavements without punishment. Sgt Nick Clarke said: ‘Riding on the pavement is technically illegal, just like being drunk in a pub is technically illegal, but we don’t enforce it unless we have good reason.’

Written response from the Mayor

Please also see my response to MQ 2017 /552.

I am assured that the activity led by Sergeant Nick Clarke does not allow cycling on pavements, rather it seeks to understand the holistic reasons as to why cyclists are using the pavement and to work in partnership to ensure that this is stopped safely, including prosecution where appropriate.

The additional ward officers allocated to Camden Borough will assist in responding to this and other antisocial behaviour.

 

Formula 1

Question No: 2017/0569

Andrew Dismore

Do you support the staging of a Formula 1 motor race on the streets of London?

Written response from the Mayor

I am always open to receiving new event proposals, but before an F1 Grand Prix could happen in London, I would want to see a significant reduction in the emissions currently emitted by the cars.

 

TfL procurement

Question No: 2017/0585

Andrew Dismore

What is your estimate of the effect of the post-Brexit drop in the value of Stirling on TfL’s future procurement of a) buses b) underground trains and c) other equipment?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL is exposed to foreign currency movements through major procurements and has procedures in place to identify and mitigate this exposure during the procurement process, when they become certain and after a contract is agreed. Any currency exposure ultimately depends on the identity of the successful bidder, so it is impossible to estimate what this impact could be until after contracts are finalised.

TfL has a number of active procurements, including the purchase of rolling stock, which may result in currency exposure. However, these procurements are commercially sensitive and, as such, it would not be appropriate to comment on specific projects. At any given time, TfL manages financial risk relating to exchange rate movement of £100m to £200m. TfL keeps this risk under close review as each procurement progresses.

TfL does not anticipate any impact in relation to bus procurement as bus services are delivered under concession agreements with bus operators. The bus operators purchase the majority of buses on the network, not TfL, and TfL does not anticipate a potential future drop in the value of Sterling to impact on negotiating future contracts with these operators.

 

Cutting bus route 13

Question No: 2017/0591

Andrew Dismore

TfL have now announced that they intend to go ahead with their plan to cut bus route 13 despite the overwhelming opposition to the scheme in the public consultation, including ignoring the petition against it too. What is the point of TfL consulting the public when they always ignore the outcome of any given consultation if it does not agree with what they intend to do?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL considers all feedback carefully before deciding how to proceed on a scheme following public consultation. While the proportion of support for or against a scheme offers a way of assessing the attitudes of respondents, other factors must also be taken into account, including the detailed content of consultation responses, feedback from other forms of engagement, available funding, passenger usage, technical information and wider strategic imperatives. This information helps to determine the best way to achieve a scheme’s objectives.

TfL did not ignore the petition on route 13 and it is explicitly included in their summary of consultation responses: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/routes-13-82-113-139-189/.

Changes to route 13 are part of a wider set of changes in this area to ensure the network adapts to changing patterns of demand.

 

Impact of HS2 on Euston

Question No: 2017/0596

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2017/0215

Further to Question No: 2016/4854:

Further to Question No: 2016/4380:

In August you wrote a very welcome letter to the Secretary of State for Transport about the impact of HS2 on Euston setting out your concerns on behalf of residents after you met with local representatives. Details of this appeared in the Evening Standard last month. Have you received a reply yet; and if so, will you publish it; and if not what are you doing to press for a reply?

Your response being:

The Secretary of State responded to my letter on 10 October, stating that he shares my desire to maximise the opportunity HS2 presents locally and wants to see a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston.

His response also recognises that it is critical to mitigate the impacts of construction on people living and working around the Euston area. Whilst the SoS’s response provides some reassurance, I will continue to push for a better outcome at Euston to reduce the impacts of HS2 and protect peoples quality of life and livelihoods.

Will you now publish the Secretary of State’s letter of 10th October?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

As this is the third time this question has been raised, will you now answer it substantively and publish the Secretary of State’s letter of 10th October?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my earlier response to MQ 2016/ 4380 (as below).

The Secretary of State responded to my letter on 10 October, stating that he shares my desire to maximise the opportunity HS2 presents locally and wants to see a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston.

His response also recognises that it is critical to mitigate the impacts of construction on people living and working around the Euston area. Whilst the SoS’s response provides some reassurance, I will continue to push for a better outcome at Euston to reduce the impacts of HS2 and protect peoples quality of life and livelihoods.

I have asked my officers to contact you directly on this matter.

 

Camden Street

Question No: 2017/0597

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2017/0253

The lack of pedestrian crossing on the east side of the Camden St/Camden Rd junction is proving very difficult for the school commute for children and their families from Hawley and St Martin’s Primary Schools. Will you ensure that officers from TfL actively propose improvements to pedestrian crossings as part of their ongoing review of traffic flow in the area?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

Will you now give a substantive answer?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my response to MQ 2017/253.

USA Embassy and the congestion charge

Question No: 2017/0598

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No Question No: 2017/0222

The USA embassy has consistently refused to pay its congestion charge bill. What is the total now due; and as there is a new President in the USA will you take the opportunity to raise this matter with him, and send him the bill?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

Will you now give a substantive answer?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my response to MQ 2017/222.

 

Archway buses

Question No: 2017/0599

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2017/0223

Archway is an important transport hub for residents of Barnet and Camden and other neighbouring boroughs who will have to put up with worse traffic and poorer bus connectivity if TfL’s scheme goes ahead. Of the large total of 818 responses, a massive 75% were against TfL’s scheme. Yet TfL are ignoring residents’ and commuters’ objections. What was the point in consulting when TfL are not prepared to listen to an answer they didn’t want to hear; and will you now review the scheme in light of the overwhelming opposition to it?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

Will you now give a substantive answer?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my response to MQ 2016/4889.

 

Archway Gyratory [1]

Question No: 2017/0600

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No: 2017/0224

Further to Question No: 2016/4889

Do you agree that a good definition of Consultation might be:

“let people know what they are proposing and why, give them a chance to comment, and conscientiously take into account their responses with an open mind before deciding whether or not to do what was proposed.”

That being the case, what was the point of the public consultation on the proposals for the Archway Gyratory scheme, if TfL have decided to ignore what the public say? Of the 818 respondents, 75% disagreed with the proposal. How is this “conscientiously taking into account responses with an open mind before deciding whether or not to do what was proposed”?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

Will you now provide a substantive reply?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

As this is now the second reminder, will you now give a substantive answer?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my response to MQ 2016/4889.

 

Track maintenance north of East Finchley station

Question No: 2017/0601

Andrew Dismore

Further to Question No 2017/0227

Since March of 2016 residents have suffered from a noise problem arising from overnight track maintenance just north of East Finchley station. They have suffered an unprecedented 13 nights broken sleep due to hammering and drilling on this track generally starting at 2 a.m. and lasting till 4 a.m. The work seems to concentrate on the central track – this is neither the northbound nor the southbound track, but a rarely-used track used to turn the trains around. TFL has made no attempt to give residents notice of this work or tell them when it is scheduled to be completed. One resident emailed TFL’s Freedom of Information office (foi@tfl.gov.uk) on 15th November to try to find out when the work is due to finish, but they have not bothered to reply. Will you look into the issue and give a proper reply as to what has been going on, when this will stop and ensure fair warning is given to residents?

Your response being:

‘Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly’

Will you now give a substantive answer?

Written response from the Mayor

Please see my response to MQ 2017/227.

 

Northern Line noise

Question No: 2017/0610

Andrew Dismore

Residents  who live in Arlington Road  and Mornington Crescent  Camden Town have been suffering with disturbing noise from the Northern Line which  has got considerably worse in the last two years with measurements showing ground-borne noise of 55dB (as tested by TfL) every time a Southbound Bank branch train passes by, plus disturbing vibration. The Northbound Bank branch is also audible. Whilst TfL are proposing to retrofit rubber bushings onto the stretch of Southbound line which has concrete sleepers which may help, they say that they cannot do anything about the corrugated track exists on both lines because the only solution to this is hand grinding which is very slow and expensive or totally replacing the track also very slow and even more expensive. What can you do to help these residents affected by tube noise?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL is planning to install shock absorbent fixings on the southbound Northern line at the beginning of April and estimates that this work will take four weeks to complete. After this work is complete, TfL’s noise experts will take follow-up measurements at a number of properties to assess the benefit and then decide how best to tackle any remaining noise issues.

 

rail-grinders

Question No: 2017/0611

Andrew Dismore

Is it correct that there is no electric-powered rail-mounted rail-grinder small enough to be used in the Northern Line tunnels, thus preventing corrugated tracks being smoothed out, when compared with other lines where a diesel powered rail-grinder can be used; and if so, what can be done about this?

Written response from the Mayor

TfL has allocated funds in its Business Plan to develop its own electric-powered rail grinder unit which would be suitable for use across the entire Tube network. TfL is aiming for this unit to be in service in 2020/21.

TfL currently contracts the most modern and efficient diesel-powered grinding machinery available. Some limitations remain due to the age and geometry of some of TfL’s infrastructure. In these locations, TfL uses a variety of methods to manage rail condition and reduce noise, such as replacing rails and installing shock absorbent track fastenings.

 

Routemaster buses recall

Question No: 2017/0614

Andrew Dismore

Is it correct that more  than 400 of the previous Mayor’s Routemaster buses are being recalled because of a fault with the doors which  means the rear doors can be opened while the bus is actually moving, which then makes the vehicle suddenly stop. If so this fault is on top of the previous faults with their batteries and steering. What is the cost of remedial works on these buses and what is the impact on the reliability of the routes they serve?

Written response from the Mayor

Londoners deserve an affordable and functional bus fleet, which is why I will not be purchasing any more New Routemaster buses.

The fault you refer to was caused by a problem with the door control software in some New Routemaster buses which meant it was possible for the rear doors to be opened by the bus driver at speeds of 5mph or less, if a driver pressed the door close button ten to 20 times in a row and the halt brake was applied.

TfL has confirmed that the buses did not need to be recalled by the manufacturer for this problem to be fixed which meant that there was no impact on bus services. The affected buses had their software updated at bus garages when they were not in service and guidance was issued to bus drivers to ensure that the correct procedure was followed to avoid this problem occurring.

The software has been updated in all affected vehicles at no cost to TfL.

 

spoof ‘Suicide Bomber Royal Navy recruitment’ posters

Question No: 2017/0615

Andrew Dismore

What urgent action are you taking over the apparently spoof ‘Suicide Bomber Royal Navy recruitment’ posters appearing on TfL advertising sites?

Written response from the Mayor

The posters were fly-posted illegally, were obviously in no way affiliated with the Royal Navy and were not authorised by TfL. TfL is taking this matter extremely seriously both because of the inappropriateness of the posters and because posting them is as an act of vandalism.

As soon as the posters were brought to TfL’s attention, it instructed its contractor to remove them.

TfL works closely with British Transport Police and the MPS and will investigate the incident and take further action as appropriate.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare